TUMBLR

A scrapbook of stuff I'm reading / looking at / listening to / thinking about...



Posts tagged "neuroscience"

Feb 14, 2014
Permalink
Excerpt from A General Theory Of Love

quartey:

ucresearch:

ucresearch:

From A General Theory of Love by UCSF’s Dr. Thomas Lewis.
It’s a great mix of humor, poetics and science.  

“Long-standing togetherness writes permanent changes into a brain’s open book.  In a relationship, one mind revises another; one heart changes its partner. … Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on whom we love.”

"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on whom we love."

I just started this last night. Started with the 7th chapter about kids. Lots of underlining, including this passage:


  Everything a person is and everything he knows resides in the tangled thicket of his intertwined neurons. These fateful, tiny bridges number in the quadrillions, but they spring from just two sources: DNA and daily life.


First heard about it from Maria.

Excerpt from A General Theory Of Love

quartey:

ucresearch:

ucresearch:

From A General Theory of Love by UCSF’s Dr. Thomas Lewis.

It’s a great mix of humor, poetics and science.  

Long-standing togetherness writes permanent changes into a brain’s open book.  In a relationship, one mind revises another; one heart changes its partner. … Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on whom we love.”

"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on whom we love."

I just started this last night. Started with the 7th chapter about kids. Lots of underlining, including this passage:

Everything a person is and everything he knows resides in the tangled thicket of his intertwined neurons. These fateful, tiny bridges number in the quadrillions, but they spring from just two sources: DNA and daily life.

First heard about it from Maria.

(Source: mabelles, via jedsundwall)

Jan 30, 2013
Permalink

Dec 30, 2012
Permalink

On writing self-help books

This year I unwittingly found myself an author of a book stocked in the self-help section, and so I’ve spent some time paying attention to self-help as a genre (and it is a genre), and sorting out my feelings about it, and now that I’m writing a new book, I’m wondering if it too is a self-help book, and what that means, and whether I can study the form in a way so that I can subvert it or put my own spin on it.

Colin Dickey posted a great piece back in October on the history of the self-help book and where it is now.

He points to Samuel Smiles’ 1859 book, Self-Help, as the beginning of the genre. (Dickey notes, with a hint of disdain, that “naturally” it was self-published, but a little research tells me it “sold 20,000 copies within one year of its publication” and by his death “had sold over a quarter of a million.“ Not too shabby.) Self-Help was actually a sort of noble reaction to “various movements [of the 19th century] that promoted panaceas to cure all of society’s ills: phrenologists, teetotalers, vegetarians, hydrotherapy advocates… and on and on—all promising simple, quick fixes that would lead to utopian harmony.”

Smiles rejected all of that; the key to success, he argues in Self-Help, is knowledge and hard-work. “Men must necessarily be the active agents of their own well-being and well-doing,” he writes, “and that, however much the wise and the good may owe to others, they themselves must in the very nature of things be their own best helpers.”

Dickey says the problem with self-help today is that it has returned to the very quick-fix pseudoscientific snake-oil cures that Smiles (what a perfect name) was reacting to: enter the world of pop neuroscience books by Malcolm Gladwell and Jonah Lehrer, which Isaac Chotiner called: “laboratory-approved self-help…self-help for people who would be embarrassed to be seen reading it.”

Indeed, Put Some Neuroscience On It!™ is the easiest way to add credibility to what is, essentially folk wisdom, as is pointed out in my review of Imagine, “The Neuroscience of Bullshit), and this juicy bit from Steven Poole’s piece, “Your brain on pseudoscience: the rise of popular neurobollocks”:

[H]ere is a recipe for writing a hit popular brain book. You start each chapter with a pat anecdote about an individual’s professional or entrepreneurial success, or narrow escape from peril. You then mine the neuroscientific research for an apparently relevant specific result and narrate the experiment, perhaps interviewing the scientist involved and describing his hair. You then climax in a fit of premature extrapolation, inferring from the scientific result a calming bromide about what it is to function optimally as a modern human being. Voilà, a laboratory-sanctioned Big Idea in digestible narrative form. This is what the psychologist Christopher Chabris has named the “story-study-lesson” model, perhaps first perfected by one Malcolm Gladwell. A series of these threesomes may be packaged into a book, and then resold again and again as a stand-up act on the wonderfully lucrative corporate lecture circuit.

It’s interesting to note that while Smiles’ book started out “in a speech he gave in March 1845 in response to a request by a Mutual Improvement Society,” nowadays, self-help is usually used as a way of getting to give speeches. Ryan Holiday in his piece, “Why Books Are Now The Ultimate Business Card”:

Faced with declining sales and the disappearance of book retailers like Borders, authors have diversified their income streams, and many make substantially more money through new business generated by a book, rather than from it.

Today, authors are in the idea-making business, not the book business. In short, this means that publishing a book is less about sales and much more about creating a brand. The real customers of books are no longer just readers but now include speaking agents, CEOs, investors, and startups._

(It’s a sad truth: talking about being creative can be way more lucrative than, you know, actually being creative.)

But back to Dickey: he pulls out what could, very possibly, be the formula for a self-help book proposal or dust jacket flap:

This is the foundation of self-help, after all: unlock the secrets that make me better, and then tell me what to do. Give me actionable intelligence, make me more creative, increase the percentage of solutions I’m able to devise. Give me a plan because I’m incapable of making my own; give me a plan because mine isn’t working.

(Sidenote: one of my favorite things about criticism is that it’s actually great ammo for the criticized: for instance, reading criticism of self-help can actually make you a better or more successful self-help author, with formulas revealed and alternate possibilites suggested. Whether you use the knowledge for good or evil, whether you try to improve or harness and amplify what’s already there is up to you…)

Is there hope for self-help? Dickey suggests that because it is so largely untapped by folks with literary or artistic ambitions, self-help is actually a genre ripe for experimentation. He points to Cheryl Strayed’s Tiny Beautiful Things: Advice on Love and Life from Dear Sugar as a kind of cross-genre beast of literary essays masquerading as self-help:

Strayed… deals in—if not clichés, then slogans. “Trust yourself,” she writes in one column, “It’s Sugar’s golden rule. Trusting yourself means living out what you already know to be true.” Another 2,000 word post features the maxim: “Write like a motherfucker”—helpfully available now on mugs and t-shirts.

What’s interesting about Strayed’s column, though, is that these slogans and maxims are, as often as not, near the beginning of the column rather than the end. The best posts dispense advice almost perfunctorily, before moving into long personal essays—essays that at times can seem like digressions.

As long as humans feel the need to improve themselves, to get better at life and work, self-help, whether it’s called that or not, is not going away. What self-help needs is authors willing to fuck with it, to mix it with other forms and breed mongrels, to give it equal doses of honesty and weirdness.

Sep 23, 2012
Permalink

Apr 03, 2012
Permalink
Jonah Lehrer, Imagine: How Creativity Works


First off, I like a lot of Jonah Lehrer’s writing — I quoted him in Steal, after all — but if you’ve been following me on Twitter, you probably know how I’m feeling these days about neuroscience/art writing:


  BREAKING NEWS: after stuffing 100 college students into an MRI machine, neuroscience has proven yet another piece of ancient folk wisdom!


Or:


  Need credibility? Put some neuroscience on it!™


The assumption of this book is that neuroscience is shedding new light on how we’re creative:


  For the first time we can see the source of imagination…For the first time in human history it’s possible to learn how the imagination really works. Instead of relying on myth and superstition, we can think about dopamine and dissent, the right hemisphere and
  social networks…


I don’t disagree with Lehrer’s prescriptions (take a walk, drink a beer instead of a coffee, etc.), but really, is thinking about dopamine and the right hemisphere going to make me more creative? Is any of this neuroscience telling us anything new, or is it just supporting the stories of the creators featured in the book? This isn’t to say neuroscience isn’t valuable (I particularly like the way Lynda Barry uses her science reading as a way to reflect on her art) but it’s a very young field, whereas creativity is an ancient endeavor, with a wealth of thinkers and material to draw from. It’s like saying, “You know all that wisdom artists and thinkers have been dishing out for thousands of years? TURNS OUT science says it’s true! It’s in your brain, man!”

I’m pretty sure that Bob Dylan, Milton Glaser, Shakespeare, and most of the other creators in this book didn’t need a neuroscience book in order to be creative. I’d love to cut all the science from this book and just let Lehrer tell the stories of these folks and how they made their work, because those stories are the parts of this book I really loved, the parts I really learned from, and the parts I’d recommend reading.

UPDATE: this review puts my thoughts into words better than I could.

Jonah Lehrer, Imagine: How Creativity Works

First off, I like a lot of Jonah Lehrer’s writing — I quoted him in Steal, after all — but if you’ve been following me on Twitter, you probably know how I’m feeling these days about neuroscience/art writing:

BREAKING NEWS: after stuffing 100 college students into an MRI machine, neuroscience has proven yet another piece of ancient folk wisdom!

Or:

Need credibility? Put some neuroscience on it!™

The assumption of this book is that neuroscience is shedding new light on how we’re creative:

For the first time we can see the source of imagination…For the first time in human history it’s possible to learn how the imagination really works. Instead of relying on myth and superstition, we can think about dopamine and dissent, the right hemisphere and social networks…

I don’t disagree with Lehrer’s prescriptions (take a walk, drink a beer instead of a coffee, etc.), but really, is thinking about dopamine and the right hemisphere going to make me more creative? Is any of this neuroscience telling us anything new, or is it just supporting the stories of the creators featured in the book? This isn’t to say neuroscience isn’t valuable (I particularly like the way Lynda Barry uses her science reading as a way to reflect on her art) but it’s a very young field, whereas creativity is an ancient endeavor, with a wealth of thinkers and material to draw from. It’s like saying, “You know all that wisdom artists and thinkers have been dishing out for thousands of years? TURNS OUT science says it’s true! It’s in your brain, man!”

I’m pretty sure that Bob Dylan, Milton Glaser, Shakespeare, and most of the other creators in this book didn’t need a neuroscience book in order to be creative. I’d love to cut all the science from this book and just let Lehrer tell the stories of these folks and how they made their work, because those stories are the parts of this book I really loved, the parts I really learned from, and the parts I’d recommend reading.

UPDATE: this review puts my thoughts into words better than I could.

Today's #chalkmug (neuroscience)

Oct 28, 2011
Permalink

Oct 28, 2010
Permalink
Medieval Arabic diagram of the visual system

Ibn al-Haytham (circa 1027, published in 1083). The oldest known drawing of the nervous system shows a large nose at the bottom, eyes on either side, and a hollow optic nerve that flows out of each one towards the back of the brain.

From a slideshow of images from Portraits of the Mind: Visualizing the Brain from Antiquity to the 21st Century (via)
Medieval Arabic diagram of the visual system
Ibn al-Haytham (circa 1027, published in 1083). The oldest known drawing of the nervous system shows a large nose at the bottom, eyes on either side, and a hollow optic nerve that flows out of each one towards the back of the brain.

From a slideshow of images from Portraits of the Mind: Visualizing the Brain from Antiquity to the 21st Century (via)

Oct 26, 2010
Permalink
I sometimes find myself just admiring the pockets of space between the different branches in a tree and walking and immersing myself in those pockets of space. It is just beautiful. It is a beautiful sensation.
— Sue Barry, a neurobiologist, cross-eyed since early infancy who relearned how to view the world stereoscopically

(via nprfreshair)

Oct 12, 2010
Permalink
[Poets] already know that metaphor is the only way of understanding anything.

Permalink
Subscribe to my newsletter and get new art, writing, and interesting links delivered to your inbox every week.