Neuroplasticity, how we think, and how hard it is to change.

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

COH has brought up neuroplasticity a few times recently. This refers to the ability of our brains to form new pathways and reorganize old ones to make sense of new information that doesn't fit in our current conception of the world.

There are actually studies that examine this phenomenon. One that has been studied for many decades is the inverted glasses experiment. In this experiment, someone wears a pair of glasses that inverts their vision. After a while, they eventually become accustomed to it, and their brains work just as well as they did before. In their minds, they see the world as perfectly normal, not upside-down. This shift happens very suddenly, usually after a short period of profound confusion. When they remove the glasses, the world is once again confused, until their brain becomes accustomed to what had previously for their entire lives been considered normal vision.

There are two other experiments I'd like to mention. The first is the playing card experiment. If you want to try it out, watch this video before you read further (hit the full-screen to do it right):


I'll wait.

...

...

...

...

...

If you watched it, you probably (eventually) figured out the problem. One of the cards is the wrong color. For most people, when the cards are flashing very quickly, they easily identify the anomalous card, although their identification could be either a spade or a heart. As the cards slow down, they become more and more confused, until eventually the time period is long enough that they figure out exactly what the card is. Fully 10% of people never figure it out. Their brains are simply incapable of grasping the idea of a red spade.

I tried this experiment with my mom, and she followed the same pattern. First time through, she was sure it was a spade. Second time through, she said the same, but added, "Something's wrong." Third time through, she said it was "6 of spades, no hearts, no wait. I don't know." Last time through, when the picture stays on the card, she eventually figured it out.

Another similar experiment is this reverse bicycle: a bicycle that has been engineered so that the handlebars turn the wheel in the opposite direction:


It took this man months to figure out how to ride this bicycle. More interestingly, when he did, it snapped into place very quickly, and doing so became second nature to him. Most interestingly, when he tried to ride a regular bicycle at this point, he was entirely incapable of doing so.

His son, though, learned to ride the reverse bicycle in just a couple of weeks. The brain of a child is much more plastic than the brain of an adult, and much more easily changeable.

The lesson in all this? For our purposes here, it is this: you view the world through a certain context, of which you may only be peripherally aware, if at all. You do not view the world objectively. None of us do. When you encounter an idea you disagree with, you will never be able to rationally determine if this new idea is better than your current idea, unless you consistently and purposefully expose yourself to this new idea from a new point of view. For example, if you are pro-choice, you will never understand or appreciate the pro-life stance if you define "pro-life" as "infringing the rights of women." If you are a global warming skeptic, all the science in the world won't ever change your mind if you only look at it as just excuse for the government to hinder business.

To truly and fairly examine competing viewpoints, we must force ourselves to examine those views in the same context as their proponents, because our brains are wholly incapable of doing it for us. To understand the pro-lifer, you have to shut out your concerns over women's rights, and examine why they are concerned with the rights of a fetus. To understand global warming, you have to shut out your concerns over carbon taxes and government regulation, and examine why scientists draw the conclusions they do.

You may think you already do this. You may think you are objective. The statistics, and biology, suggest you probably are not. None of us are. We must make a concerted effort to walk in the other's shoes if we want to understand their viewpoint and judge it fairly.

 

[DougS]

I'm not seeing a link to the playing card video.

 

[NPT]

I'm not seeing a link to the playing card video.

Just click on the video picture itself.

 

[NPT]

COH has brought up neuroplasticity a few times recently. This refers to the ability of our brains to form new pathways and reorganize old ones to make sense of new information that doesn't fit in our current conception of the world.

There are actually studies that examine this phenomenon. One that has been studied for many decades is the inverted glasses experiment. In this experiment, someone wears a pair of glasses that inverts their vision. After a while, they eventually become accustomed to it, and their brains work just as well as they did before. In their minds, they see the world as perfectly normal, not upside-down. This shift happens very suddenly, usually after a short period of profound confusion. When they remove the glasses, the world is once again confused, until their brain becomes accustomed to what had previously for their entire lives been considered normal vision.

There are two other experiments I'd like to mention. The first is the playing card experiment. If you want to try it out, watch this video before you read further (hit the full-screen to do it right):

View embedded media

I'll wait.

...

...

...

...

...

If you watched it, you probably (eventually) figured out the problem. One of the cards is the wrong color. For most people, when the cards are flashing very quickly, they easily identify the anomalous card, although their identification could be either a spade or a heart. As the cards slow down, they become more and more confused, until eventually the time period is long enough that they figure out exactly what the card is. Fully 10% of people never figure it out. Their brains are simply incapable of grasping the idea of a red spade.

I tried this experiment with my mom, and she followed the same pattern. First time through, she was sure it was a spade. Second time through, she said the same, but added, "Something's wrong." Third time through, she said it was "6 of spades, no hearts, no wait. I don't know." Last time through, when the picture stays on the card, she eventually figured it out.

Another similar experiment is this reverse bicycle: a bicycle that has been engineered so that the handlebars turn the wheel in the opposite direction:

View embedded media

It took this man months to figure out how to ride this bicycle. More interestingly, when he did, it snapped into place very quickly, and doing so became second nature to him. Most interestingly, when he tried to ride a regular bicycle at this point, he was entirely incapable of doing so.

His son, though, learned to ride the reverse bicycle in just a couple of weeks. The brain of a child is much more plastic than the brain of an adult, and much more easily changeable.

The lesson in all this? For our purposes here, it is this: you view the world through a certain context, of which you may only be peripherally aware, if at all. You do not view the world objectively. None of us do. When you encounter an idea you disagree with, you will never be able to rationally determine if this new idea is better than your current idea, unless you consistently and purposefully expose yourself to this new idea from a new point of view. For example, if you are pro-choice, you will never understand or appreciate the pro-life stance if you define "pro-life" as "infringing the rights of women." If you are a global warming skeptic, all the science in the world won't ever change your mind if you only look at it as just excuse for the government to hinder business.

To truly and fairly examine competing viewpoints, we must force ourselves to examine those views in the same context as their proponents, because our brains are wholly incapable of doing it for us. To understand the pro-lifer, you have to shut out your concerns over women's rights, and examine why they are concerned with the rights of a fetus. To understand global warming, you have to shut out your concerns over carbon taxes and government regulation, and examine why scientists draw the conclusions they do.

You may think you already do this. You may think you are objective. The statistics, and biology, suggest you probably are not. None of us are. We must make a concerted effort to walk in the other's shoes if we want to understand their viewpoint and judge it fairly.

My problem (and I think it applies to most people) is that I don't really look closely....I just skim and come to the wrong conclusion sometimes. I didn't spot what was wrong with the cards the first time through because I didn't know what I was looking for so I was trying to remember the order of the cards and not really looking closely at the cards.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

My problem (and I think it applies to most people) is that I don't really look closely....I just skim and come to the wrong conclusion sometimes. I didn't spot what was wrong with the cards the first time through because I didn't know what I was looking for so I was trying to remember the order of the cards and not really looking closely at the cards.

You're not supposed to be looking for anything wrong. The key to the experiment is that, as long as possible, your brain squeezes the card into a category you already know. For example, you might have called it a six of hearts the first time through. That's not a failure. It's what the brain does. That's the lesson.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

COH has brought up neuroplasticity a few times recently. This refers to the ability of our brains to form new pathways and reorganize old ones to make sense of new information that doesn't fit in our current conception of the world.

There are actually studies that examine this phenomenon. One that has been studied for many decades is the inverted glasses experiment. In this experiment, someone wears a pair of glasses that inverts their vision. After a while, they eventually become accustomed to it, and their brains work just as well as they did before. In their minds, they see the world as perfectly normal, not upside-down. This shift happens very suddenly, usually after a short period of profound confusion. When they remove the glasses, the world is once again confused, until their brain becomes accustomed to what had previously for their entire lives been considered normal vision.

There are two other experiments I'd like to mention. The first is the playing card experiment. If you want to try it out, watch this video before you read further (hit the full-screen to do it right):

View embedded media

I'll wait.

...

...

...

...

...

If you watched it, you probably (eventually) figured out the problem. One of the cards is the wrong color. For most people, when the cards are flashing very quickly, they easily identify the anomalous card, although their identification could be either a spade or a heart. As the cards slow down, they become more and more confused, until eventually the time period is long enough that they figure out exactly what the card is. Fully 10% of people never figure it out. Their brains are simply incapable of grasping the idea of a red spade.

I tried this experiment with my mom, and she followed the same pattern. First time through, she was sure it was a spade. Second time through, she said the same, but added, "Something's wrong." Third time through, she said it was "6 of spades, no hearts, no wait. I don't know." Last time through, when the picture stays on the card, she eventually figured it out.

Another similar experiment is this reverse bicycle: a bicycle that has been engineered so that the handlebars turn the wheel in the opposite direction:

View embedded media

It took this man months to figure out how to ride this bicycle. More interestingly, when he did, it snapped into place very quickly, and doing so became second nature to him. Most interestingly, when he tried to ride a regular bicycle at this point, he was entirely incapable of doing so.

His son, though, learned to ride the reverse bicycle in just a couple of weeks. The brain of a child is much more plastic than the brain of an adult, and much more easily changeable.

The lesson in all this? For our purposes here, it is this: you view the world through a certain context, of which you may only be peripherally aware, if at all. You do not view the world objectively. None of us do. When you encounter an idea you disagree with, you will never be able to rationally determine if this new idea is better than your current idea, unless you consistently and purposefully expose yourself to this new idea from a new point of view. For example, if you are pro-choice, you will never understand or appreciate the pro-life stance if you define "pro-life" as "infringing the rights of women." If you are a global warming skeptic, all the science in the world won't ever change your mind if you only look at it as just excuse for the government to hinder business.

To truly and fairly examine competing viewpoints, we must force ourselves to examine those views in the same context as their proponents, because our brains are wholly incapable of doing it for us. To understand the pro-lifer, you have to shut out your concerns over women's rights, and examine why they are concerned with the rights of a fetus. To understand global warming, you have to shut out your concerns over carbon taxes and government regulation, and examine why scientists draw the conclusions they do.

You may think you already do this. You may think you are objective. The statistics, and biology, suggest you probably are not. None of us are. We must make a concerted effort to walk in the other's shoes if we want to understand their viewpoint and judge it fairly.

This is mostly wrong, goat.

Brain or neural plasticity has to do with the brain changing itself on a cellular level, not changing how we employ the cells we already have. Your post has more to do with the latter than the former. The brain was first thought to be immutable--that we must live with the brain we have, not with the brain we wish we had. But science has shown that to be untrue. The brain grows new cells, or repurposes old ones to accommodate damage or insult to other parts of the brain. Most of the time these changes happen to those areas over which we don't exercise conscious control--but knowledge about that is changing too.

Your post and link are interesting for other reasons than to illustrate plasticity.

This has to do with how the brain receives and processes outside stimuli. Take vision which is the subject of your playing card link. That demonstration is another way of asking us if we can believe our lying eyes. Vision is always about memory, not about images. Thus when we "see" something, the brain cannot process it unless that sensory input triggers a memory of the object or something similar. Another aspect of your playing card link is an Escher drawing. When we see one of those, our immediate reaction is the guy drew some stairs, so what? A moment later re realize that drawing is impossible. Different aspects of memory are triggered with Escher's work.

Your global warming example likewise has nothing to do with plasticity. That has to do with the components of belief, knowledge, intelligence, superstition, and cognition. Much of this gets back to a simple function of decision making, and decision making gets back to the risk reward, or the pleasure pain, instincts in our minds. To keep it simple, there are essentially three views of climate change:

1. It is real, it is a threat, humans are responsible, and if we don't act we face calamity.
2. It is real, the earth and us can cope. It might even be a good thing.
3. It is nothing out of the ordinary and we don't need to worry about it.

When you think about the risk reward aspects for each POV, it explains much. For most people, their views are a blend of these points. Ultimately though, after considering all of the input we care to, we come to the decision that gives each of us the greatest reward for the least risk. Or gives us the greatest satisfaction. (There are many components to this which is the center of the debate) That isn't very scientific in terms of atmospheric science, but it is very scientific in terms of brain science.

The human brain is the most complex organism in existence--at least on earth. It controls everything about how we behave, think, and all conscious and unconscious activity. The brain and the universe are things I never get tired of thinking about. Like the universe, we don't know hardly anything about the human brain. That insatiable quest for knowledge is what drives brain evolution.

Finally, a freebie for you. Go see Tomorrowland. That flick has appeal on many different levels. One them is what I think is the subject of your post, how and why we think the way we do. The movie focused on optimism vs. pessimism--which gets back to risk reward analysis. George Clooney and Hugh Laurie were excellent.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm surprised you don't see the connection, COH. I wasn't making a post about neuroplasticity per se. I was just using it as a jumping off point. I know my examples were broad, but I see an obvious connection between, say, the bike experiment, which is clearly about plasticity in response to behavior and sensory inputs, and the card experiment, which is about mapping sensory inputs to preconceived categories.

The point is that our brains can change and learn, but they don't always do it easily. We are not the rational animals you seem to think we are based on your climate change comments. Instead our brains naturally take new information and fit it into the paradigm that already exists in our minds. I chose abortion and global warming as two examples to highlight this, because it seems clear to me that these are two debates in which both "sides" tend to talk past each other rather than to each other. I think it is because the people on either side are actually having entirely different debates about entirely different subjects, i.e., a pro-lifer is having a debate about fetal rights while a pro-choicer is having a debate about women's rights.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm surprised you don't see the connection, COH. I wasn't making a post about neuroplasticity per se. I was just using it as a jumping off point. I know my examples were broad, but I see an obvious connection between, say, the bike experiment, which is clearly about plasticity in response to behavior and sensory inputs, and the card experiment, which is about mapping sensory inputs to preconceived categories.

The point is that our brains can change and learn, but they don't always do it easily. We are not the rational animals you seem to think we are based on your climate change comments. Instead our brains naturally take new information and fit it into the paradigm that already exists in our minds. I chose abortion and global warming as two examples to highlight this, because it seems clear to me that these are two debates in which both "sides" tend to talk past each other rather than to each other. I think it is because the people on either side are actually having entirely different debates about entirely different subjects, i.e., a pro-lifer is having a debate about fetal rights while a pro-choicer is having a debate about women's rights.

I don't disagree with that

I think you are just explaining risk/reward or pleasure/pain in different terms. Fitting new information into known paradigms is part of what we are both talking about. That is a comfort zone for all of us. But there are others too. Being part of the consensus/crowd; accumulating power, influence, and control; financial rewards; truth-seeking; being a rebel, and superstition. Even a state of fear motivates many of us in that people seek to be afraid. (This is why I suggested you watch Tomorrowland) These motivations probably shift depending on the reason for following them. All of these motivations can readily be seen in all of the debates of our time, including climate change and abortion.

I think your link about rationality begs the question. What is "true" is rarely objective.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think your link about rationality begs the question. What is "true" is rarely objective.

But we agree that looking at things objectively is a desirable activity in many cases, right?

The lesson I hoped to highlight was that we don't engage in that activity easily, especially when doing so requires considering a paradigm shift, e.g., accepting the fact that there is such a thing as a red spade.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Yes, looking at things objectively is desirable.

But that is not the goal. The goal is how we get from ignorance to truth. It's a journey not a destination.

This contrast is readily apparent in law school, at least it was 45 years ago. Judging from what I see from recent graduates, that distinction is disappearing.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yes, looking at things objectively is desirable.

But that is not the goal. The goal is how we get from ignorance to truth. It's a journey not a destination.

This contrast is readily apparent in law school, at least it was 45 years ago. Judging from what I see from recent graduates, that distinction is disappearing.

It's a good way to get to truth, is the point.

I'm having a hard time figuring out if you're actually criticizing something I'm saying, or if the topic is just so interesting that you want to keep the thread alive.

At least at Toledo, law school was primarily focused on how to think like a legal scholar. They are slowly transitioning to a focus on how to practice like a lawyer, which I think is a good change. I desperately wish I had had more opportunities to do clinical work in my years there.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It's a good way to get to truth, is the point.

I'm having a hard time figuring out if you're actually criticizing something I'm saying, or if the topic is just so interesting that you want to keep the thread alive.

At least at Toledo, law school was primarily focused on how to think like a legal scholar. They are slowly transitioning to a focus on how to practice like a lawyer, which I think is a good change. I desperately wish I had had more opportunities to do clinical work in my years there.

I think you value "truth" more than I do

I think that is because I see more opinions passing for truth than you do and truth often changes. That is why how and why we think about stuff is so important and interesting. Now we have come full circle.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think you value "truth" more than I do

I think that is because I see more opinions passing for truth than you do and truth often changes. That is why how and why we think about stuff is so important and interesting. Now we have come full circle.

I'll take that as a compliment, although I'm not sure I agree. I suppose it depends on what you think qualifies as "truth."

I certainly care very much about "fact," but I suspect you consider "truth" to be a much broader set than "fact" (as would I).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No doubt you would take that as a compliment.

I didn't intend to level a criticism. The point is that your attention to "fact" and your frequent reference to "science" and "science deniers" suggests to me that you engage more in scientism than science. In other words, you often overreach with the concept of fact and science and use it to explain ideas that are nothing but opinions.

 

[NPT]

You're not supposed to be looking for anything wrong. The key to the experiment is that, as long as possible, your brain squeezes the card into a category you already know. For example, you might have called it a six of hearts the first time through. That's not a failure. It's what the brain does. That's the lesson.

I didn't mean to imply that I was looking for anything wrong. What I was saying is that I have a tendency (like most people ) to look but not see.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I didn't mean to imply that I was looking for anything wrong. What I was saying is that I have a tendency (like most people ) to look but not see.

The point of the experiment is that it probably isn't a tendency; it's rooted in how our brains work. Your brain already has a conception of what the four suits are:
Red Diamonds
Red Hearts
Black Clubs
Black Spades

The experiment creates a Red Spade specifically because it is the combination that closely matches both the shape of one suit and the color of another. It could just as easily have been a black heart.

What the experiment teaches us is that our brains naturally fit this card into either a black spade or red heart category, because those are the two we know exist. As the exposure times get longer, and our brains have more time to process the anomalous image, we actually become more confused, until eventually we have enough time to look at it and say, "Oh, I get it now, it's a spade, but it's red!" In other words, our brains want to fit new information into existing paradigms, but given enough exposure and enough time, we do have the ability to create new paradigms to handle the new information.

But not all of us. Fully 10% of the people who take that test never figure it out, no matter how long they stare at it. They simply give up, or become so confused they can't go any further. These are the people for whom a paradigm cannot be shifted, no matter how much evidence is put before them. Their brains are simply incapable of accepting the fact that a red spade could exist. That is the key to understanding the importance of the experiment, that a measurable number of the human race simply isn't equipped to move past the observation into understanding.

 

[gbmhoosier]

I think you value "truth" more than I do

I think that is because I see more opinions passing for truth than you do and truth often changes. That is why how and why we think about stuff is so important and interesting. Now we have come full circle.

I would argue there is no "truth".

 

[NPT]

The point of the experiment is that it probably isn't a tendency; it's rooted in how our brains work. Your brain already has a conception of what the four suits are:
Red Diamonds
Red Hearts
Black Clubs
Black Spades

The experiment creates a Red Spade specifically because it is the combination that closely matches both the shape of one suit and the color of another. It could just as easily have been a black heart.

What the experiment teaches us is that our brains naturally fit this card into either a black spade or red heart category, because those are the two we know exist. As the exposure times get longer, and our brains have more time to process the anomalous image, we actually become more confused, until eventually we have enough time to look at it and say, "Oh, I get it now, it's a spade, but it's red!" In other words, our brains want to fit new information into existing paradigms, but given enough exposure and enough time, we do have the ability to create new paradigms to handle the new information.

But not all of us. Fully 10% of the people who take that test never figure it out, no matter how long they stare at it. They simply give up, or become so confused they can't go any further. These are the people for whom a paradigm cannot be shifted, no matter how much evidence is put before them. Their brains are simply incapable of accepting the fact that a red spade could exist. That is the key to understanding the importance of the experiment, that a measurable number of the human race simply isn't equipped to move past the observation into understanding.

I spotted the error pretty quickly AFTER I really started looking rather than just glancing.