As the tech industrys well-documented gender disparity once again enters the spotlight, even Michelle Obama is calling for men to make room at the table for women and other underrepresented groups.

While some people attribute the lack of women in tech to a host of issues (from social biases in childhood education that discourage women from analytic fields to a culture that silently condones sexual harassment in the workplace), others believe the answer is a little more...primal. Maybe mens brains are genetically more adept at logical reasoning. I read a study that showed that boys are better at mentally rotating cubes when theyre younger.

And there are indeed quite a lot of studies that show that men and boys are better at mentally rotating cubes, that boy babies prefer mobile toys to dolls, and other experiments that hint at a genetically predetermined male advantage in STEM.

There is also little question that currently, more men are involved in STEM fields, and that mens and womens brains are different. So its easy for people to put two and two together and assume that these differences are hardwired. That the reason that there are so few women in tech is *neuroscience*.

Thankfully, there is also Cordelia Fine. In her book Delusions of Gender, Fine dissects the various neuroscientific theories behind an intrinsic male superiority in STEM abilities and the landmark studies that supported them. A neuroscientist and researcher by trade, Cordelia Fine examines how social ideas about gender have influenced the hypotheses and methods used to study gender in as it relates to the brain. She then points out major logical faults.

Delusions of Gender illustrates how gender bias leads researchers to make flawed neuroscience conclusions that then reinforce gender bias. Ive created a brief timeline to offer a taste of how this dynamic has played out over the last 130 years:

Fines response: Did he really know not a single weedy intellectual, nor one muscular chump, to provoke him to wonder whether physical strength really was correlated with tenacity of brain action? We now have evidence to show that neither sheer brain size nor brain-to-body mass ratio are predictive of intelligence. In short, those missing five ounces mean nothing.

Again, here is a neuroscientist merely listing the observed differences between adult male and female brains. Dana does not offer a reason why these differences would lead to the conclusions he draws. The power of shared preconceptions was so overwhelming that nobody questioned the lack of real scientific evidence. Instead, scientists and readers alike accepted that if X (the observed physical differences between male and females) is true, and they believed Y (the superiority of male intellect) to be true as well, then X must cause Y.

In additional to this logical fallacy, Fine points out that observed physiological differences between male and female brains do not necessarily result in differences in brain function: some differences offset each other, and others are different means to the same behavior end.

Modern ideas of men as rational/unemotional and women intuitive/irrational seem to arise from a theory by Norman Geschwind and his colleagues in the 1980s.

In 1982, Geschwind and Behan published a short paper proposing a complicated theory behind brain lateralization. The implications for gender went something like this: during development, male fetuses experience a surge of testosterone. Geschwind suggests that this surge slows the boys left hemisphere growth, leaving male babies with greater potential for superior right hemisphere talents, such as artistic, musical, or mathematical talent.

This theory spurred decades of research into fetal testosterone, leading scientists to draw conclusions between factors like digit ratios and math abilities (again--for a more detailed dive into individual studies, read the book!).

Meanwhile, it is widely ignored that neurophysiologist Ruth Bleier points out that a premise of the fetal testosterone hypothesis, that fetal testosterone leaves boy babies with cramped left hemispheres, is inconsistent with post-mortem studies of fetal brains. So if male fetuses do not actually have smaller left hemispheres (and for that matter, expanded right hemispheres), there is no reason to believe that fetal testosterone grants them superior right hemisphere talents.

The Fetal Testosterone Hypothesis hasnt gone away, but a new generation of researchers has put forth a new theory of genetically determined male dominance in STEM abilities: The Spotlight/Floodlight hypothesis, as coined by Ruben Gur in 2005. The general idea is that women, as observed by Ruben and his wife Raquel Gur, have larger corpus callosum, the area that connects the two brain hemispheres. They pinpoint the splenium, to be specific. Because of this enlarged splenium, women have greater inter-hemispheric traffic, leading to a floodlight mind better for multitasking, whereas men, they posit, have less inter-hemispheric traffic, creating a spotlight mind better for focusing, specifically on visuo-spatial tasks deemed essential for developing STEM skills.

Hmm...women are better at multi-tasking? At first, this hypothesis seems to empower women! But then, as Fine notes, we realize that this is just new marketing copy for an idea that continues to justify the segregation of women from math and science.

But by creating and emphasizing any distinction between the functions of mens and womens brains, we open ourselves to a world in which neuroscientists can say that one genders brain is better for something than the brains of others. It was creativity in the Victorian age, judicial thought at the turn of the 20th century, and it is STEM abilities now.

Simon Baron-Cohen, a longtime champion of gender-based neural differences, demonstrates how this unintentionally sexist dynamic plays out. Baron-Cohen quoted the Spotlight/Floodlight hypothesis in Science, noting that the increased local connectivity of male brains makes them better for understanding and building systems, whereas womens long range brains make them better for empathizing.

Unfortunately for Baron-Cohen and the Gurs, meta-analyses conducted in 2004 and 2008 have showed that there is little evidence to support the idea that a female brain has on average a larger splenium. Studies that conclude this tend to suffer from small sample sizes.

A small sample size alone is not the problem. A study can have a small sample size and be perfectly valid. The problem is that studies that show difference are more likely to be published. So if 20 studies are conducted and only one shows a difference, that one will be published because it causes a stir. But by looking at all twenty studies in a meta analysis, we see that the one published study was only significant because of its small sample size.

So lets recap: the Spotlight/Floodlight hypothesis posits that 1) because women have a larger splenium (part of the corpus callosum, which connects the two hemispheres), the hemispheres in womens brains do more talking; 2) men have less hemispheric talking because of a smaller splenium; and 3) less hemispheric talking is better for building systems e.g. engineering abilities, therefore men are better at engineering. Even disregarding the dubious nature of claim #3, meta analyses show that women do not on average have a larger splenium, which eliminates this entire hypothesis as a possible neuroscientific explanation for the abundance of Y chromosomes in tech startups.

In addition to the lack of evidence to support the hypothesis that a woman has a larger splenium, the Gurs themselves found evidence that contradicted the Spotlight/Floodlight hypothesis. The Gurs and their colleagues found that in some parts of the brain, men show more bilateral (cross-hemispheric) activation than women on certain visuo-spatial tasks. As a result, they edited the Spotlight/Floodlight hypothesis to the following: optimal performance on these STEM-skill-determining visuo-spatial tasks now requires unilateral activation in primary regions AND bilateral activation in associated regions.

At this, Cordelia Fine delivers one of the best passages in the book:

Basically, the Gurs coined Spotlight/Floodlight when they found evidence for less bilateral activation in male brains, then claimed that less bilateral action = STEM brain. Then they found more bilateral activation in male brains for other STEM tasks, which prompted them to change their hypothesis. The Gurs reformulation now claims that an optimal STEM brain has unilateral (spotlight) activation and some bilateral (floodlight) activation.

Cordelia Fine pokes fun at their shifting stance while suggesting again that certain scientists are so determined to find evidence for male STEM superiority in the brain that they will label anything they find as the cause.

Fine is not saying that its impossible that there is something inherent in males that could make them more suited for math and science. She simply argues that the current support for this idea is poorly substantiated.

To reiterate: the debate in question is not about whether there are differences between men and women. At every level of behavioral science, from the brain to behavior, differences are well-documented. The debate is over whether or not these differences are predetermined by genetics, or if they are the result of brain plasticity and stereotype threat in a society where, from infancy, we see messages that men=mars=science and women=venus=empathy.

In the end, Delusions of Gender has two calls to action: 1) Scientists should have more rigor when conducting and reporting on studies that have implications as serious as the origins of gender differences. 2) Readers should be vigilant when presented with such studies and not be dazzled by the use of neuroscience simply because it is neuroscience.

For anyone who is interested in the brain, research methods, applied science, gender, parenting, the workplace, human nature, or general sass, this book is an absolute must read.

Cyndi Chen writes about jobs, women, and technology. She is currently pursuing her MBA at Yale University. Interests include human narratives, the brain, pop culture, art, the Bachelor, and railing against the wedding industry. Follow Cyndi on Twitter at https://twitter.com/cyndithinks

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Excerpt from:
Summer Reading: how biases influence neuroscience research on gender - HuffPost

Seema Sueko, 44, is deputy artistic director at Arena Stage. She was born in Pakistan and lives in Columbia Heights.

A deputy title is very Washington, like our welcome to you. Youll get an undersecretary next.

It is a title thats also used at the Royal Shakespeare [Company]and the National Theatre in London. As far as I know, its the first usage at an American nonprofit theater.

You developed a strategy called consensus organizing for theater. What does it look like in practice?

I first developed it in San Diego at Mo`olelo Performing Arts Company. CO, consensus organizing, is about mutual self-interest. For theater its about building stake in multiple pockets of communities and those communities building stake back in the theater by organizing around mutual self-interest. With Smart People, the play I just directed at Arena, I want this play to be as artistically excellent as possible. I needed to learn about neuroscience, how an EEG machine works. I needed a deeper dive into theories about implicit bias and the science and psychology of racism. We look at what are our assets, dramaturgically searching the greater Washington area. One example of an asset is the Brain and Behavior Initiative at University of Maryland. I asked them what do they really want, which is the heart of consensus organizing. Theyre a multi-disciplinary initiative. They wanted to further embrace working across disciplines. They wanted to get their students off campus. They wanted to have their students have a creative experience.

Yay!

Two hundred students and faculty members from a diversity of disciplines came to the show and did a pre-show workshop and a talk-back with the cast. Now were talking about what well do next season together.

Whats CO look like for an upcoming show?

For Native Gardens by Karen Zacaras, we are beginning conversations with communities engaged in Latinx studies, neighborhood associations, plant science and landscaping, American studies, women in science and engineering, among others. Theyre still early stages.

What was your first big moment of theater?

I was in the eighth grade in Hawaii. I saw my sister playing the lead in the musical Little Mary Sunshine. My sister was very shy, so introverted. To see her transform onstage and just bring so much joy to the audience really moved me.

She became somebody unlike herself in real life?

I think she just revealed all of the magnificent-ness, if thats a word, about herself. All the things that I, as her sister, knew and saw but she kept hidden from others because she was shy. There it was, all for everyone to see.

More Just Asking

For stories, features such as Date Lab, Gene Weingarten and more, visit WP Magazine.

Follow the Magazine on Twitter.

Like us on Facebook.

Email us at wpmagazine@washpost.com.

More here:
An Arena Stage director on neuroscience for research and inspiration - Washington Post

Professor of Religion James Walters, PhD, left, and guest speaker Philip Clayton, PhD, took questions from the audience after Claytons plenary address during the conference Whats with Free Will? Ethics and Religion after Neuroscience.

Arms crossed in defiance. So reacted many of the audience members when Philip Clayton, PhD, stated his conviction that humans dont have complete free will. Noting this instinctual response of his listeners, Clayton said:

Half of you just crossed your arms over your chest, which is a biological signal that you think Im wrong.

For community members attending the conference Whats with Free Will? Ethics and Religion after Neuroscience on May 19-20, the topics complexity was revealed in the range of viewpoints argued by Clayton, of Claremont School of Theology, and the events other plenary speaker, Thomas Oord, PhD, of Northwest Nazarene University, as well as numerous other scholars during the smaller sessions.

Professor of Religion James Walters, PhD, of Loma Linda Universitys School of Religion, where he also directs its Humanities Program, organized the conference to consider the vast topic of free will, particularly in light of some new neuroscience findings that may suggest free will is just an illusion. That idea runs contrary to centuries of much Christian teaching that argues for free will as both a cornerstone of theodicy and a sign of Gods love for his creatures a love that does not allow Him to compel. The topic of free will is also crucial to fields such as law and ethics.

Clayton began his presentation by asking the audience members to clap their hands or blink, noting that they did so of their own free choice. Some refused to do it, also indicated their free choice right?

By and large, we just know were free, dont we? he asked, before spending the next hour arguing that most people dont have genuine freedom but that people may possess a psychological and spiritual freedom that, for most intents and purposes, is genuine.

Beginning with new findings of neuroscience and then discussing the increasing complexity of living organisms, from single-celled creatures to the great apes to humans, Clayton explained how both complexity and unpredictability increase, along with the ability to learn new behaviors.

But does that equal genuine free will? He argued no: humans are conditioned and bound by genetics, the workings of the brain, experience and education, to name a few to make the choices they do.

Was Nobel Laureate Francis Crick right? Are we nothing but a pack of neurons?

No, argued Clayton. He suggested a way to rise above pure determinism, via an asymptotic (for the mathematically inclined) or quasi type of freedom. He said that though humans cannot truly break free of every influence over them, according to scientific findings, they can choose a self-identity in which looking back and looking forward they own responsibility for their actions even if they werent taken freely.

In other words, humans transcend their lack of choice by creating personhood. And this allows humans to come into communion with what philosophy calls the ground of our being, which Clayton believes to be God. Having a relationship with Him.

This, Clayton said, is the answer we give to the universe.

Audience members heard a different perspective from Oord the next day. He opened his talk by asking the audience to imagine explaining the human experience via email to a being from a different galaxy.

Would free will be something to include that email? He argued yes of a limited variety. Despite what were told as children, we cannot actually be anything we want when we grow up. A person with no coordination cannot play the game like their favorite professional athlete, for example, he said. A blind person cannot choose to see.

But in general starting with what he called the most obvious reason Oord argued that our actions reveal our basic belief in freedom. He noted that if someone is punched, he or she will blame the aggressor.

Free will, Oord said, helps people make sense of other people and is necessary for the societal and religious concept of moral responsibility. Other items on his list of nine reasons we should affirm freedom included:

It shows us that our lives matter. It explains the desire to reject the old and embrace the new (change ones ways). It is most compatible to believing in a God who loves us. It explains our desire to learn.

This is an argument many would agree with. But Oord declared another, more controversial tenet: God, too, is limited.

Yes, Oord said: by the very nature of Gods being love He cannot act outside the desire for creaturely well-being.

This begs the question of why He doesnt then prevent suffering, Oord said.

God cannot prevent evil unilaterally, Oord said, backing up the statement by pointing to Bible verses that state limitations on Gods behavior. For example, 2 Timothy 2:13 says God cannot be unfaithful to his nature. Hebrews 6:18, among other verses, states God cannot lie.

But unable to stop wickedness? Part of His nature that Oord argued God cannot deny is to give life and give autonomy with it. And as an open theist, Oord believes God does not know the future and could not predict whether that freedom would mean creatures choosing sin and evil.

Following Oords presentation, a panel of some of the conferences scholars responded.

They were Kendal Boyd, PhD, MA, associate professor in LLU School of Behavioral Health; Calvin Thomsen, PhD, assistant professor in LLU School of Religion; Fritz Guy, PhD, author and research professor of philosophical theology at La Sierra University; David Larson, PhD, DMin, professor in LLU School of Religion; Richard Rice, PhD, professor in LLU School of Religion; Marlene Ferreras, MFT, doctoral student at Claremont School of Theology and associate professor of practical theology at La Sierra University; James Walters; Gerald Winslow, PhD, director of LLU Center for Christian Bioethics; Zane Yi, PhD, assistant professor at LLU School of Religion; Charles Scriven, PhD, author, pastor, former educator and chair of the Adventist Forum board; and Mark Ard, MD, MA, psychiatry resident at Loma Linda University Health. Most of them are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which is the parent organization of Loma Linda University Health.

On the whole, Oords concept of human free will seemed to appeal more to most members of the panel than did Claytons. But there was some disagreement from the panel about Oords argument that Gods will is not completely free.

Winslow, for example, expressed discomfort with the idea that God has to give creatures free will. Rather, he said, God risked much in the service of love.

For her part, Ferreras agreed that God cannot exert complete control over humanity, but she said that He is able to act in the world for the good through the church.

Clayton was tasked with making a closing statement. He started by noting that he and Oord, with their two different ways of seeing, both have the same commitment to belief in a God of love.

And to understand Gods love, the best way to do so is to put it in terms of the greatest amount of love that humans can conceive of, Clayton said, which he believes is revealed through studying the nature of Jesus.

Clayton referred to the apostle Pauls letter to the Philippians, chapter 2:6-8, which says of Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death even death on a cross!

Humans have the freedom to make a similar choice, Clayton said. A God who would voluntarily limit Godself so that we as puny human beings could rise, be free and enter into relationship with God, is the model for our own love, to voluntarily live in a sacrificial way for others.

Conference planner Walters said after the event, "I couldn't be more pleased with how the conference came together.The quality of the presentations was top-rate, the discussion significant and engaging, and the diversity of views broad. No one argued for a simple free will. A few argued that free will is more hope than reality, but the majority view was that humans possess genuine, but limited, free will."

Video of the conference can be viewed on the LLU School of Religion events video page.

Originally posted here:
Scholars debate free will in light of new neuroscience findings - Loma Linda University Health

vV.y UH,h+rR"A 1 0K$#1y&$`Iks5k8 ?0:0xga IKF+p4x`My*{u%}Q'VRj=q$a48 Ga*G~0JZsaqpv7,OUR;BXR`.e;"+}w

n+:5;!KSTj2ue'NX I*WOFq8e?mp23=%rDADx0!I*2Q<Z'dfM?-RKFqcrgv)]0{!'rVRPKw3$SXA?"djAQv;aapMG8jPk$QX=/"zN^,2u

{/ot3LXuby 1l(.dUHu%F_ GCP:! Fa63PuyFGVU?7/o7,xxJUj=!:=z1NU(k2A6FSQVC3K9 lSNTR=B2]-ZacX :Ms`m OtVPca5m$;PGJ~i^(`~Xibx_k+/YDmUJ& }k=|yY`B v#Pru_%aJU*CoJ4730t2][2PL0CoKyF1|NNFjGz"pUqBt_T4]9 .[ 1|RM:TV+`CAvan"Gtya! 0UAP3 D11vi$UO LFMne}} VS@5ouyYY.sU^26XU&PnxT2qoos71"3%' BZ-0$.cn;@18sRUPE(W fuGY,9O3ByZ'HXE +KVB |vemb5^L)6gbr06?=(<}C#hMK=!NhK/f2-yP7qxb:|s|5P284!2-NR$7a@Wh}"KR*bES{6ISlwP*GU ,,rv1*+FJ xi-Z:T`'~VdA:^j-["B$YMv+nq`.-DFKwV|n#,S/ B_2~~t'i'C~>>V25+'P0#dsKWR9'%8%5aBzNg{HY$qecq,9lOG4wBjWjd)yb#6L5e^oD1Q]NLj)8pAM'QCOcM#ll[y ArqcvP_?vsJ{j{^6OCDp$< WS0)/m*7Acycy%JW1*8849j [5i6Im{y9Ik&v9^N6<;YQ~Pfy9k MnR]Xl7 R/5 kEB)N(Gx<`J&$p`B>5B+wTS p?>f<~N+Fn4`EIK4lgJIO2h@X/c[38Im8@SL| ,6L +`, QXp]<=WR Ga]xg_Cip!w'`7[Np@NIs{j6.z5s^ RRzeVNevP"=.(Pm3pW0l`/Z :s@_/ /$nB C4GmCs0 a W<(}s-v qU@Y,r1cvMc)4~OQ8,-KJE%Ti|U:0#(YuQ-#L(W#:o(p:unm)+9v42Tile6}!r0&O!@x A)|TDQ4hs|90eS!w,"TFX%6g0rOBq+Ju2#L9E$??2OSwpDR( G4xM):=N0*;s~]lz~x;6'gdVyJn70oWtjb~`Vu*J!(hh@jUx bj+FwGS ow'A i!8ZjCd#hO24Pkws}QW(rL n3^6i3~k5YQ 3+QWF:FX2uHQ;~1o+&,FR%r>G+(?'aYejUba=O&g4TGc84^ &Ft:z~~wK:|Re(i.Q??n{Xd,`#IF#VWhlb6=vA ;-YQ=VKZZ0< yy2NC|4 Y,BIXt|~&oNF7u/}/A2!; 1i>;cUlKq# "Hr L=k)Gk,.|PeU#hb_@#"pM@Jq4q^= 5HbK"jx9 hT@M[I_^[&Umnh@E*^)tQS?o3lzXPxN jjw 9 hc8{^|IwMBz(pU {p:&YZ2S >~F];+z'//uU41Tmr--38Qt>R xQL8~z;G.lpvI n:zcADN=(,?&8#{7NN$ht&i_VTl%^G%,`w[9|B,6bxAn3Rp2QY67ga7[P2q{vk]goay$/K4/%RMNselsH+tiTSy#pnK83W%ZZYGuSd.cn[p8J#Wpz1"9V(g$`h2[_+!SW"]&Xp ?n c%Q$ $lfMw+jmm[0]HoUVN Oj:y;w+#(Q WG)2E)U.dmWxfI4kmSvwUrQzMA+'. 0nv[jqa|p7PbE%Y&t]SIr$|y '!3KhX~NN>TZ*DObip7FOMAS!4a#ndH1"a _RsD$$trgvB}?XFa}Lw)fqc~j'"9D{E8 .cnAksaV=tU3g~dD {6tVaJR8Gd'*]k3A':)PUGN7QzIai3la1y.p K%+6)8R$)> Al9R ^s5@`+h~OSS+>:hiEufaLbr_zobdIj>rgBLf]V tDTjo }bkzKZZj{?IG,aK |/]0Ykv2/pI|#`66BBb8$k]uC *l:X)CHB?/q|Dc[V-K%G" #dpFZ94Co0DtY LvOAia|IL z9Q+)Jb*?)hQ:@[;88t84",#f9aF nyyE{yCjN2?CTL a??:F{~?o_v`t}Q>j2d2XAJP]M-X;z65w}"^]}?SqwVN6]4v,a#{XVYG{_?h 1@uU*Cuvuv-1 x;":Klv&Bzrn$E};$wGfV] |P:?&-?#_q)oQg) Qx"j|>yg*Kwxb+! A"YS9P}!W~o}p9-i6'i2%pdZIL(QASFBGqqNL*B!+z<< 1oe;F]G`@rN~JU]6ZR*- J8R0<)p /O rAKlB1N1X%Th8 &Ck7.+rqRE4_rCQ7Sw^'y_,C}/+ G!a&9^(< gxxDdvUHXT2QP c[x&% Plwi]}M{5ck[aL*75eJ :"P9{+;x$ [RS b$>,.XqeMz^0dXS2 jY^ "S Q B*z@0R=wsdZI Z cSA!a$aF "@-IP/-J+/CHr*5]Ow-[>h2C~S:vLzj~T7MOB^feq#tx:jPwj`T}yn7X;j*T5LhW-:sf]Ni >f7O2<)#".[72L1CL}Or$,nOEa(-`uo914T5dI23PM*7Pl`W2nIDxJ|3!I4TAK|A<2x{HU)JIfarei2"H 3^r=fqXQG`SV~1jD.@}R L C](1hXQ3%NY 0`] V{(@ELLaHn`#1A,sAd)2n]kA g,)& 4Ss(i55z7RDxmc`I IaOvOOYQ[As*P)`*;'+0gi L`&$B3l@vLm2.z`e7 `Ccmof|ca"h~nth +;TwC6,BCN4 )hG$~B.uq>C3^'A@Elj:UL6' }Fs D=4*L:`<^VV -=L~A"#pqfeP|EC 3Tm}#8;,+5:=A@ 3@%O2-.C.c]!Rda]) :]'Xd^_.G!LD~])5L%^Bz @?0CW"i0:pO2MD8sgW^g,!UwB 0=/JJBi{{p'k%er<"]qtbW j36EoZ@N"GTw.G6S50s(iMd"t3MNHE$lo eEndN ;Tho+_+MB25ImrMy(Pc?.*PG`](?J.stV4X s} dl*Sgc;uCH(b/jNX>!*M"D7/{6?xgx^#0/ M]Ln'I$ 7'k~G}t7mK!+2;`JoqZ|m8uuo+7 RzbB HtP"8Gy5L6Ksk^D9(i! XdA qn:1q9q<.=wgfUT},!-gz}|'1%,gL|&=/8AIw4faLc=dI$K8 N~spU=K"*M$SH-k-fB5.m~:G!IST9:":3TRo<Vc}k:n[c86qkR$JI!/;L3 dbM1%v'k pNll.(jh:-#irgc{]K:yquPlj>Ls?L;`+q-$+VVJvG"/JT ! ti(A%GkMl2k {%}t$I @.-7JVOr^(C=mTM$F"tNVr]^ZZo6}S5+>#&hzjA`]&e/ Na&pU@$HOTO8MzCS [ei]wAhz`''5a06P/ZEc@L|-, fYmL(;)Ss!'4R# lBX( C{F>!x^IW`Lc#3Ccs~`w 7EPED)3=^${X8jHl' M| E(xpiM:V9zeT#0 wk NUv*mbw+cS.Yny'FC7@l2'"2(YhZjM[#w5S"MP}]p@aH4&/oi%aw%dP 8ln2v9xfUni66>BO {@(u$ap*B};c xM/]sD=y,7OG?&Hd ?*>B3%}A R kc(@_fV/C}qu%2O)sJ `-ZUN*zvk?cn65XqNg]_,j(R;;L $2S[*Ehp{+*_Q@X|bbP!-'1 o&R1Pu~bPYW6?=B"$``IY: ,eVO" N[F1&FRiRKj@q )o $p-y){z 5808=Z?KCEt2)5'EKozV({dO81nLBR0@Lq`3G!EF.}|^rSyot-l8cT/u!,@JXEF C}U`n4.-0{iQQ #S$T4yMR}#3"x^uCk~*;DY[4,039vY47-$ 77#9k2X^Bf@[7[M3 [6ZTO+~$-[T.rE_4R&h`iyh6GAkA0uLES!oI]+>Y~v6 rFsJuTU-jMkx^U/ahm^6-j{Y{jf"4B$n`R}e9u]VXNc}9:AT/#pTtv2bZ/WV&xhl}~ c%"CdV**:(5!g`TS;Szwr`.]Eym kp.aY'Jo`^=t`K~p?UmK2{_h!$YWl1V45JAhf^~dV*L}Tqq[u pd&k}6}OyfNqp!x^R ANZB:jWtcD}'7tr/ygSUt|N6nCl4; _`Yg~~)Wo 14C6},CdoNl|)H Wj{f v#pI~ psTA}H#1/MQ%v/**WTW*PBOd.B(_+jks;-nXB9k|Zp{Opx7qn6 Sjs)[f}tzO h2_!Zk^#_^2+` )@8zB(1Hf4u/vgZJs $/OH~1gksz/d(zpX+pZ`Wg?csc[ gp|_g{Gh4w[n-w}!53 f1gZ}:D{7WA|l(|@6[@p/Y6 ;MH 7d'Cg$OxFXEn`S74~INuKGPV(au{"#:+F-~p]4|x c5e.Lp((1m(];g+|uWc^sX8'Gi0>>3q90wW:X{r~G76[n,OKY5uu $_L$ -yk!<| fsQ pj=#oNMg;@t@7_+ZUW|" '.QrKZ@!o5O I?J_xg^*2g"%,^yEfM6y/T&/'D/x/z;i4hs.i{ o #Cp;:'E .A9C3{O-P2uA2WVh%?4I'(wi(q;3|p3*akCJ~Q kL6W6Wm=9 @r>%]{(v "jCCrNg-'6uzPv-^?79wb;P5)+~8iD][O:WUr'[#R:5PCd1Zf7j8_kT r5GXNGhjf JRmiRy{zu 21pdX(X,X]t!l[lj c%b+f4Cqo0Vh| 2Xj{pPc9%vZ9}I$sCIvWtRk/#k0 RMtK`;_W:m""q,a-vnu6Q OWgmz0@;:{O;?2lPj}xi?B,<=)[^ _F"-t(OHy #zw*Nrp;=Q8}*D@;]4@f5^A"0/C|&tY`'p|#Kp!/F@dS'eNfxA{VF"-MF6At8jnt{l|Q@'`Y8 DE~:i@*n&p$l]u8zlrXfB>`|)u!R0'5zf9 h'EAi2i9oTTvF.Jz_z;o+u8u>CO/ef~JTtiH?.N*z H5z-5~_ur`gV -f}R^{vVB74z^IgU -"Gt/ [fyfjf] "`XCCNpX($^l#r/uG!Y_#-aOJn! NO(^o^%,24D8|qE2!}>/RYH66xGt_((W^;ZTltL)pTMg8p#:&%5 &c U7TO-Eh[">oC7F?(4>MJY}S3Sm P91S)I|G'`v?`_U(N1MKa|^nl X$gfreqHib 5QSFRC&6 -1Kn3::fv}4rr^/" 8

Read more:
Neuroscience research suggests human brains think in 11 different dimensions - Digital Trends

June 21, 2017 Credit: CC0 Public Domain

While concussion awareness has improved over the past decade, understanding the nuances of these sports injuries, their severity, symptoms, and treatment, is still a work in progress. In the June 21 issue of Neuron, UCLA neurologists and neurotraumatologists review the science of concussions and outline several areas where neuroscience and clinical research can help create consensus in the field: definitions of what acute and chronic concussions are, diagnostics, and management and treatment.

"For patients, you have to be able to provide the best care even if you don't have the exact research study to prove what you're doing, and you also have to address the information that the patients and their families are getting through the media," says Christopher C. Giza (@griz1), Director of the UCLA Steve Tisch BrainSPORT program and Professor of Pediatrics, Neurology, and Neurosurgery at the University of California Los Angeles. "That's a discussion that's hard to have because people naturally look for very short answers and sound biytes, and it's far more complex than that."

1. Let's Agree on the Definition of a "Concussion," both Acute and Chronic

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported about 2.8 million traumatic-brain-injury-related emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States in 2013. However, researchers disagree about whether all concussions and traumatic brain injuries are equal. A concussion may be characterized by wooziness, disorientation, incoordination, headache, and other "typical" symptoms after a hit to the head and may occur even with only rapid back-and-forth motion of the head and neck. Some have postulated that subconcussive injuries with repetitive head impacts in the absence of symptoms may result in cumulative problems.

Giza says that although a concussion and a more severe traumatic brain injury may sound similar, and although they may share some symptoms, the overlap between the two is not clear. Additionally, the determination of whether someone has a concussion or a mild traumatic brain injury or something else is largely subjective and often relies heavily on symptom reporting from the patient.

"One of the things that will help us on the acute diagnosis of concussion would be if we moved away from the current understanding of concussion as a black-or-white, yes-or-no answer," Giza says. "There are scenarios when we can be more certain, clinically, that we're making the correct diagnosis. If there's a clear impact event, there's a typical constellation of symptoms that occurs in temporal relationship to the impact, and that symptom pattern has a time course consistent with what we see in concussion in terms of peaking early followed by gradual improvement, then we can diagnose confidently."

Giza notes that not every symptom that occurs after a hit to the head is related to a concussion, which is why formal diagnosis requires an experienced clinician. Similarly, not all chronic symptoms are referable to a distant concussion or head impact. Understanding the physiological mechanisms underlying concussions and concussive symptoms (both acute and chronic) can lead to better diagnostic tests and potentially point the way to individualized treatment plans.

2. Realize that Diagnosis Is Critical to Treatment

Some concussion patients experience atypical symptoms, or usual symptoms that get worse later on instead of improving. One potential pitfall of concussion diagnosis is that some symptoms may appear to be concussion related but could actually be a symptom of something else, like migraine, dehydration, hyperthermia, neck strain, or more severe brain injury.

"We need to prioritize what we think sounds like a definite concussion vs. probable vs. possible, and even recognize that there are syndromes with neurological symptoms that occur after impact that are something more than a concussion," Giza says. "There are rare patients who have cerebral edemasometimes, we call it second impact syndrome, which is another ambiguous termbut that's not a concussion. Patients who very rarely get a subdural hematoma as a consequence of a sports injury sometimes are portrayed as having had a concussion, but a subdural hematoma or an epidural hematoma is something much more than what we would diagnose clinically as a concussion."

There are also computerized tests, and soon, hopefully blood tests, brain imaging, and electrical tests that can help diagnose concussion or follow recovery, but because concussions are "the most complex injury to the most complex organ" in the human body, there is not necessarily a magic bullet, catch-all, perfect method for diagnosing concussions.

3. Focus on Animal Research to Discover Better Treatment Plans

"In the clinical concussion world, many of the research protocols are observational, but I think laboratory neuroscience can inform in terms of how important is the time between injuries and how much cognitive or physical activity should there be during the recovery period," Giza says. Focusing on animal models is one way neuroscience can help accelerate concussion and traumatic brain injury research, particularly in the investigation of how consequences of repetitive injury differ when they occur very close in time versus when they are spaced out, and in determining when the brain is physiologically ready to return to activity.

"Animal models are also well suited for looking at long-term processes set into play by the acute injury." Giza says. "So animals can be subjected to repetitive injuries when they're relatively youngat least in rodent models, within a year or two, those animals become 'old' animals, and we can look to see along that time course whether mechanisms of neurodegeneration have been activated, and whether that leads to deficits over time. Those studies can be done in the time course of months to years rather than decades, as would be necessary for clinical studies. If we do things right in the coming years, we can really change the game in our understanding about concussion and brain injuries."

Explore further: Athletes may have white matter brain changes six months after a concussion

More information: Neuron, Giza et al: "It's Not All Fun & Games: Sports, Concussions and Neuroscience" http://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(17)30404-X , DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.05.003

Journal reference: Neuron

Provided by: Cell Press

New research finds white matter changes in the brains of athletes six months after a concussion. The study will be presented at the Sports Concussion Conference in Chicago, July 8-10, hosted by the American Academy of Neurology, ...

Women athletes are 50 percent more likely than male athletes to have a sports-related concussion, according to a preliminary study released today that will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology's 69th Annual Meeting ...

Nearly half of female athletes participating in high school sports have had a diagnosed or suspected concussionbut most don't report these sports-related injuries to coaches or trainers, reports a study in the Journal ...

A new study finds that concussion causes short-term impairment of the cardiovascular system but that these cardiovascular symptoms typically resolve within three days of the injury. The article is published ahead of print ...

New research has found concussions accelerate Alzheimer's disease-related brain atrophy and cognitive decline in people who are at genetic risk for the condition.

(HealthDay)Athletes may take longer to recover after a concussion if they had psychosomatic symptomsaches and pains caused by mental distressbefore their head injury, new research suggests.

Although "multitasking" is a popular buzzword, research shows that only 2% of the population actually multitasks efficiently. Most of us just shift back and forth between different tasks, a process that requires our brains ...

While concussion awareness has improved over the past decade, understanding the nuances of these sports injuries, their severity, symptoms, and treatment, is still a work in progress. In the June 21 issue of Neuron, UCLA ...

For most people having a good memory means being able to remember more information clearly for long periods of time. For neuroscientists too, the inability to remember was long believed to represent a failure of the brain's ...

The optic nerve is vital for visiondamage to this critical structure can lead to severe and irreversible loss of vision. Fengfeng Bei, PhD, a principal investigator in the Department of Neurosurgery at Brigham and Women's ...

An international research team led by investigators at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) - along with their facilitating partner the Tourette Association of America ...

A new brain imaging study by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) shows for the first time that brain inflammation is significantly elevated - more than 30 per cent higher - in people with obsessive-compulsive ...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Read the original here:
Three ways neuroscience can advance the concussion debate - Medical Xpress

In Brief The Problem

Leaders know that low employee engagement is a sign of lost valueits clearly something they want to fix. But most of them dont know how, so they provide random perks, hoping those will move the needle.

Its much more effective to create a culture of trust. Neuroscience research shows that you can do this through eight key management behaviors that stimulate the production of oxytocin, a brain chemical that facilitates teamwork.

By fostering organizational trust, you can increase employees productivity and energy levels, improve collaboration, and cultivate a happier, more loyal workforce.

Companies are twisting themselves into knots to empower and challenge their employees. Theyre anxious about the sad state of engagement, and rightly so, given the value theyre losing. Consider Gallups meta-analysis of decades worth of data: It shows that high engagementdefined largely as having a strong connection with ones work and colleagues, feeling like a real contributor, and enjoying ample chances to learnconsistently leads to positive outcomes for both individuals and organizations. The rewards include higher productivity, better-quality products, and increased profitability.

So its clear that creating an employee-centric culture can be good for business. But how do you do that effectively? Culture is typically designed in an ad hoc way around random perks like gourmet meals or karaoke Fridays, often in thrall to some psychological fad. And despite the evidence that you cant buy higher job satisfaction, organizations still use golden handcuffs to keep good employees in place. While such efforts might boost workplace happiness in the short term, they fail to have any lasting effect on talent retention or performance.

In my research Ive found that building a culture of trust is what makes a meaningful difference. Employees in high-trust organizations are more productive, have more energy at work, collaborate better with their colleagues, and stay with their employers longer than people working at low-trust companies. They also suffer less chronic stress and are happier with their lives, and these factors fuel stronger performance.

Leaders understand the stakesat least in principle. In its 2016 global CEO survey, PwC reported that 55% of CEOs think that a lack of trust is a threat to their organizations growth. But most have done little to increase trust, mainly because they arent sure where to start. In this article I provide a science-based framework that will help them.

About a decade ago, in an effort to understand how company culture affects performance, I began measuring the brain activity of people while they worked. The neuroscience experiments I have run reveal eight ways that leaders can effectively create and manage a culture of trust. Ill describe those strategies and explain how some organizations are using them to good effect. But first, lets look at the science behind the framework.

Back in 2001 I derived a mathematical relationship between trust and economic performance. Though my paper on this research described the social, legal, and economic environments that cause differences in trust, I couldnt answer the most basic question: Why do two people trust each other in the first place? Experiments around the world have shown that humans are naturally inclined to trust othersbut dont always. I hypothesized that there must be a neurologic signal that indicates when we should trust someone. So I started a long-term research program to see if that was true.

I knew that in rodents a brain chemical called oxytocin had been shown to signal that another animal was safe to approach. I wondered if that was the case in humans, too. No one had looked into it, so I decided to investigate. To measure trust and its reciprocation (trustworthiness) objectively, my team used a strategic decision task developed by researchers in the lab of Vernon Smith, a Nobel laureate in economics. In our experiment, a participant chooses an amount of money to send to a stranger via computer, knowing that the money will triple in amount and understanding that the recipient may or may not share the spoils. Therein lies the conflict: The recipient can either keep all the cash or be trustworthy and share it with the sender.

To measure oxytocin levels during the exchange, my colleagues and I developed a protocol to draw blood from peoples arms before and immediately after they made decisions to trust others (if they were senders) or to be trustworthy (if they were receivers). Because we didnt want to influence their behavior, we didnt tell participants what the study was about, even though there was no way they could consciously control how much oxytocin they produced. We found that the more money people received (denoting greater trust on the part of senders), the more oxytocin their brains produced. And the amount of oxytocin recipients produced predicted how trustworthythat is, how likely to share the moneythey would be.

Since the brain generates messaging chemicals all the time, it was possible we had simply observed random changes in oxytocin. To prove that it causes trust, we safely administered doses of synthetic oxytocin into living human brains (through a nasal spray). Comparing participants who received a real dose with those who received a placebo, we found that giving people 24 IU of synthetic oxytocin more than doubled the amount of money they sent to a stranger. Using a variety of psychological tests, we showed that those receiving oxytocin remained cognitively intact. We also found that they did not take excessive risks in a gambling task, so the increase in trust was not due to neural disinhibition. Oxytocin appeared to do just one thingreduce the fear of trusting a stranger.

My group then spent the next 10 years running additional experiments to identify the promoters and inhibitors of oxytocin. This research told us why trust varies across individuals and situations. For example, high stress is a potent oxytocin inhibitor. (Most people intuitively know this: When they are stressed out, they do not interact with others effectively.) We also discovered that oxytocin increases a persons empathy, a useful trait for social creatures trying to work together. We were starting to develop insights that could be used to design high-trust cultures, but to confirm them, we had to get out of the lab.

So we obtained permission to run experiments at numerous field sites where we measured oxytocin and stress hormones and then assessed employees productivity and ability to innovate. This research even took me to the rain forest of Papua New Guinea, where I measured oxytocin in indigenous people to see if the relationship between oxytocin and trust is universal. (It is.) Drawing on all these findings, I created a survey instrument that quantifies trust within organizations by measuring its constituent factors (described in the next section). That survey has allowed me to study several thousand companies and develop a framework for managers.

Through the experiments and the surveys, I identified eight management behaviors that foster trust. These behaviors are measurable and can be managed to improve performance.

The neuroscience shows that recognition has the largest effect on trust when it occurs immediately after a goal has been met, when it comes from peers, and when its tangible, unexpected, personal, and public. Public recognition not only uses the power of the crowd to celebrate successes, but also inspires others to aim for excellence. And it gives top performers a forum for sharing best practices, so others can learn from them.

Barry-Wehmiller Companies, a supplier of manufacturing and technology services, is a high-trust organization that effectively recognizes top performers in the 80 production-automation manufacturers it owns. CEO Bob Chapman and his team started a program in which employees at each plant nominate an outstanding peer annually. The winner is kept secret until announced to everyone, and the facility is closed on the day of the celebration. The chosen employees family and close friends are invited to attend (without tipping off the winner), and the entire staff joins them. Plant leaders kick off the ceremony by reading the nominating letters about the winners contributions and bring it to a close with a favorite perkthe keys to a sports car the winner gets to drive for a week. Though the recognition isnt immediate, it is tangible, unexpected, and both personal and public. And by having employees help pick the winners, Barry-Wehmiller gives everyone, not just the people at the top, a say in what constitutes excellence. All this seems to be working well for the company: It has grown from a single plant in 1987 to a conglomerate that brings in $2.4 billion in annual revenue today.

When a manager assigns a team a difficult but achievable job, the moderate stress of the task releases neurochemicals, including oxytocin and adrenocorticotropin, that intensify peoples focus and strengthen social connections. When team members need to work together to reach a goal, brain activity coordinates their behaviors efficiently. But this works only if challenges are attainable and have a concrete end point; vague or impossible goals cause people to give up before they even start. Leaders should check in frequently to assess progress and adjust goals that are too easy or out of reach.

The need for achievability is reinforced by Harvard Business School professor Teresa Amabiles findings on the power of progress: When Amabile analyzed 12,000 diary entries of employees from a variety of industries, she found that 76% of people reported that their best days involved making progress toward goals.

Once employees have been trained, allow them, whenever possible, to manage people and execute projects in their own way. Being trusted to figure things out is a big motivator: A 2014 Citigroup and LinkedIn survey found that nearly half of employees would give up a 20% raise for greater control over how they work.

Autonomy also promotes innovation, because different people try different approaches. Oversight and risk management procedures can help minimize negative deviations while people experiment. And postproject debriefs allow teams to share how positive deviations came about so that others can build on their success.

Often, younger or less experienced employees will be your chief innovators, because theyre less constrained by what usually works. Thats how progress was made in self-driving cars. After five years and a significant investment by the U.S. government in the big three auto manufacturers, no autonomous military vehicles had been produced. Changing tack, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency offered all comers a large financial prize for a self-driving car that could complete a course in the Mojave Desert in less than 10 hours. Two years later a group of engineering students from Stanford University won the challengeand $2 million.

When companies trust employees to choose which projects theyll work on, people focus their energies on what they care about most. As a result, organizations like the Morning Star Companythe largest producer of tomato products in the worldhave highly productive colleagues who stay with the company year after year. At Morning Star (a company Ive worked with), people dont even have job titles; they self-organize into work groups. Gaming software company Valve gives employees desks on wheels and encourages them to join projects that seem interesting and rewarding. But theyre still held accountable. Clear expectations are set when employees join a new group, and 360-degree evaluations are done when projects wrap up, so that individual contributions can be measured.

Only 40% of employees report that they are well informed about their companys goals, strategies, and tactics. This uncertainty about the companys direction leads to chronic stress, which inhibits the release of oxytocin and undermines teamwork. Openness is the antidote. Organizations that share their flight plans with employees reduce uncertainty about where they are headed and why. Ongoing communication is key: A 2015 study of 2.5 million manager-led teams in 195 countries found that workforce engagement improved when supervisors had some form of daily communication with direct reports.

Social media optimization company Buffer goes further than most by posting its salary formula online for everyone to see. Want to know what CEO Joel Gascoigne makes? Just look it up. Thats openness.

The brain network that oxytocin activates is evolutionarily old. This means that the trust and sociality that oxytocin enables are deeply embedded in our nature. Yet at work we often get the message that we should focus on completing tasks, not on making friends. Neuroscience experiments by my lab show that when people intentionally build social ties at work, their performance improves. A Google study similarly found that managers who express interest in and concern for team members success and personal well-being outperform others in the quality and quantity of their work.

Yes, even engineers need to socialize. A study of software engineers in Silicon Valley found that those who connected with others and helped them with their projects not only earned the respect and trust of their peers but were also more productive themselves. You can help people build social connections by sponsoring lunches, after-work parties, and team-building activities. It may sound like forced fun, but when people care about one another, they perform better because they dont want to let their teammates down. Adding a moderate challenge to the mix (white-water rafting counts) will speed up the social-bonding process.

High-trust workplaces help people develop personally as well as professionally. Numerous studies show that acquiring new work skills isnt enough; if youre not growing as a human being, your performance will suffer. High-trust companies adopt a growth mindset when developing talent. Some even find that when managers set clear goals, give employees the autonomy to reach them, and provide consistent feedback, the backward-looking annual performance review is no longer necessary. Instead, managers and direct reports can meet more frequently to focus on professional and personal growth. This is the approach taken by Accenture and Adobe Systems. Managers can ask questions like, Am I helping you get your next job? to probe professional goals. Assessing personal growth includes discussions about work-life integration, family, and time for recreation and reflection. Investing in the whole person has a powerful effect on engagement and retention.

Leaders in high-trust workplaces ask for help from colleagues instead of just telling them to do things. My research team has found that this stimulates oxytocin production in others, increasing their trust and cooperation. Asking for help is a sign of a secure leaderone who engages everyone to reach goals. Jim Whitehurst, CEO of open-source software maker Red Hat, has said, I found that being very open about the things I did not know actually had the opposite effect than I would have thought. It helped me build credibility. Asking for help is effective because it taps into the natural human impulse to cooperate with others.

After identifying and measuring the managerial behaviors that sustain trust in organizations, my team and I tested the impact of trust on business performance. We did this in several ways. First, we gathered evidence from a dozen companies that have launched policy changes to raise trust (most were motivated by a slump in their profits or market share). Second, we conducted the field experiments mentioned earlier: In two businesses where trust varies by department, my team gave groups of employees specific tasks, gauged their productivity and innovation in those tasks, and gathered very detailed dataincluding direct measures of brain activityshowing that trust improves performance. And third, with the help of an independent survey firm, we collected data in February 2016 from a nationally representative sample of 1,095 working adults in the U.S. The findings from all three sources were similar, but I will focus on what we learned from the national data since its generalizable.

By surveying the employees about the extent to which firms practiced the eight behaviors, we were able to calculate the level of trust for each organization. (To avoid priming respondents, we never used the word trust in surveys.) The U.S. average for organizational trust was 70% (out of a possible 100%). Fully 47% of respondents worked in organizations where trust was below the average, with one firm scoring an abysmally low 15%. Overall, companies scored lowest on recognizing excellence and sharing information (67% and 68%, respectively). So the data suggests that the average U.S. company could enhance trust by improving in these two areaseven if it didnt improve in the other six.

The effect of trust on self-reported work performance was powerful. Respondents whose companies were in the top quartile indicated they had 106% more energy and were 76% more engaged at work than respondents whose firms were in the bottom quartile. They also reported being 50% more productivewhich is consistent with our objective measures of productivity from studies we have done with employees at work. Trust had a major impact on employee loyalty as well: Compared with employees at low-trust companies, 50% more of those working at high-trust organizations planned to stay with their employer over the next year, and 88% more said they would recommend their company to family and friends as a place to work.

My team also found that those working in high-trust companies enjoyed their jobs 60% more, were 70% more aligned with their companies purpose, and felt 66% closer to their colleagues. And a high-trust culture improves how people treat one another and themselves. Compared with employees at low-trust organizations, the high-trust folks had 11% more empathy for their workmates, depersonalized them 41% less often, and experienced 40% less burnout from their work. They felt a greater sense of accomplishment, as well41% more.

Again, this analysis supports the findings from our qualitative and scientific studies. But one newand surprisingthing we learned is that high-trust companies pay more. Employees earn an additional $6,450 a year, or 17% more, at companies in the highest quartile of trust, compared with those in the lowest quartile. The only way this can occur in a competitive labor market is if employees in high-trust companies are more productive and innovative.

Former Herman Miller CEO Max De Pree once said, The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between the two, the leader must become a servant.

The experiments I have run strongly support this view. Ultimately, you cultivate trust by setting a clear direction, giving people what they need to see it through, and getting out of their way.

Its not about being easy on your employees or expecting less from them. High-trust companies hold people accountable but without micromanaging them. They treat people like responsible adults.

Read more from the original source:
The Neuroscience of Trust

The neuroscience major provides students with rigorous, laboratory-based exposure to the fascinating multidisciplinary study of the brain. The program is ideal for students planning graduate or professional study in neuroscience, biology, chemistry, psychology, medicine and other related fields.

Neuroscience sits at the intersection of biology, chemistry and psychology. The term "neuroscience" was coined in the 1960s to name an interdisciplinary field that focused on both the normal and abnormal structure and function of the nervous system. Dickinson now offers students a major in neuroscience, in which Dickinson students will engage in an integrated curriculum in this very popular interdisciplinary field. The neuroscience major provides students with rigorous training in neuroscience and allied science disciplines, advanced opportunities for research, and integrated mentoring and advising of students.

The integrative nature of the two introductory neuroscience courses (Psychology 125 and Biology 124), placed both within psychology and biology, and also at the intersection of these two fields, demonstrates to the student the interconnectedness of these two sciences. Upper division courses allow the student to bring research skills to bear in the laboratory and to integrate skill and knowledge gained in the introductory courses. The elective requirements in the major allow the student to explore the many facets of neuroscience, and the student can then choose to focus on molecular or molar approaches to neuroscience; can choose to emphasize biology, chemistry or psychology within their neurosciences major; and can explore the ways other fieldssuch as anthropology, philosophy or sociologyintersect with neuroscience. Finally, a research experience allows the major to engage the world by bringing to bear learned knowledge and skills.

Read the original post:
Neuroscience | Dickinson College

The Scientific study of the brain requires the skills of many different disciplines. Thus, this major is interdisciplinary and interdepartmental. The faculty are biologists, psychologists, biochemists, mathematicians, and engineers, all of whom share a fascination with the function of the brain. The brain is studied at many different levels, including the molecular and cellular levels, the level of systems of neurons, and the behavioral level.

On April 7, 2009 The Undergraduate Council of the Academic Senate, Curriculum Committee certified the Neuroscience, B.S. as acapstone major. The Neuroscience capstone is a project-based culmination to the Neuroscience curriculum. In the Neuroscience major, the capstone requirement is satisfied by participating in research, either under the guidance of an individual faculty member or through enrolling in a research methods class, NS 101L.Completion of either of these two paths provides students with an in-depth exposure to neuroscience research and provides a culminating capstone experience for Neuroscience majors.

PREPARATION FOR THE MAJOR

Mathematics 3A, 3B, 3C OR 31A, 31B, 32A OR Life Science 30A and 30B

Chemistry and Biochemistry 14A, 14B, 14BL, 14C, 14CL, 14D OR 20A, 20B, 20L, 30A, 30AL, 30B, 30BL

Life Sciences 1, 2, 3, 23L, 4 OR Life Sciences 7A,7B,7C, 23L **Please Note: The LS 1-4 series is scheduled to phase out after Spring 2018. See important message regarding LS series at bottom of this page.

Physics 6A, 6B, 6C OR 5A, 5B, 5C OR 1A, 1B, 1C, 4AL, 4BL **Please Note: The Physics 6 series is scheduled to phase out after Winter 2018. See important message regarding Physics series at bottom of this page.

Statistics 10 or 13** **Life Science 30A and 30B students must take Stats 13. Note: For students who take Math 3ABC or Math 31AB, 32A, you may substitute Stats 10 or 13 with Psychology 100A and Biostats 100A/110A. These classes will be automatically approved substitutions. Students must notify the NS undergraduate counselor to have this substitution applied.

IMPORTANT NOTES Any honors section of a course listed above is also acceptable. All core curriculum courses must be taken for a letter grade. Each course must be passed with a grade of C- or above. The preparation coursework must be completed with an overall 2.0 grade point average or higher. Students receiving grades below C- in two core curriculum classes, either in separate courses or repetitions of the same course, are subject to dismissalfrom the major. You are encouraged to fulfill the preparation requirements prior to enrollment in upper division courses for the major.

The courses underlined above mustbe completed before beginning the Neuroscience core series or declaring the major.

REQUIRED COURSEWORK

The following eleven (11) courses are required for the neuroscience major, for a total of 47 upper division units.

REQUIRED CORE (6 courses)

Neuroscience m101A: Fall Quarter Only Prerequisites: LS 2/7C, Chem 14C/30A, Physics 6B/5C/1B

Neuroscience m101B: Winter Quarter Only Prerequisites: NS m101A, LS 3, LS 4 (LS 4 and LS 23L may be taken concurrently with m101B)

Neuroscience m101C: Spring Quarter Only Prerequisites: NS m101A

Neuroscience 102: Fall Quarter Co-requisite: must be taken concurrently with Neuroscience m101A

Chemistry and Biochemistry 153A Prerequisites: Chem 14D/30B

Chemistry and Biochemistry 153L*****(ONLY required for Neuroscience majors completing their degree in Spring 2017, Summer 2017, Fall 2017, and Winter 2018. See important message below.) Prerequisites: Chem 14BL/30AL, 153A MAJOR ELECTIVES (3 courses, 1 from each elective category)

Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Disability Studies M139 Music Industry 103 Neuroscience M119L, M130*, C172, 178, 179, M187*, 191A Physiological Science C144*, 175, M181* Psychology 110, 112A, 112B*, 112C*, M117J*, 118, 119A*, 119B*, 119C-F, 119I*, 119J*, M119L, 119M*, M119O, 119R, 119S*, M119X*, 120A, 120B*, 124A, 124B, 124C*, 124D (Consciousness: Current Debates), 124I, 127B, M139, 161, M166*, 188A (Class Title: Legal, Ethical, and Societal Implications of Cognitive Neuroscience), 188B (Class Title: Neuroscience of Social Perception) Psychiatry 182

Systems and Integrative Neuroscience Neuroscience M119N, M130*, M145*, M187*, 191B Physics C186* Physiological Science C126*, C127*, 138, C144*, M145*, 146*, 147*, 173, 177, M181* Psychology 112B*, 112C*, M117J*, 119A*, 119B*, 119I*, 119J*, 119M*, M119N, 119Q, 119S*, M119X*, 120B*, 124C*, 162*, M166* Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Neuroscience MCD Bio 162 Neuroscience M130*, M145*, C177, 180, 181, 182, 186, M187*, 191C Physics C186* Physiological Science 121, C126*, C127*, M145*, 146*, 147*, 174, M181* Psychology M117J*, 162*, M166*

IMPORTANT NOTES Neurobio M169 or PhySci 135 can be taken as an elective provided that students will still complete one elective for each of the 3 elective options above. These two classes are good options for students taking NS 101L + 1 Additional Elective. PLEASE READ:If any of the electives listed below are not populating in your DARS/DPR, please email Megan Lebre (mlebre@mednet.ucla.edu) and the class will be manually subsituted in your DARS. A * next to an elective course number means the elective is cross-listed in another category, but only count for one category. CAPSTONE RESEARCH OPTIONS (2 courses)

The capstone requirement can be fulfilled by choosing one of the following three options:

Option 1: Laboratory Methods (1) Neuroscience 101L Winter Quarter Only Pre-requisites: NS m101A, m101B (NS m101B can be taken concurrently) Psych 116 is an approved substitution for NS 101L. Neuroscience majors should keep in mind that students in the Psych department receive priority for enrollment in Psych 116.

(2) Additional Neuroscience elective Students who choose the NS 101L option must take a total of 4 upper division electives with at least one from each elective option. Neurobio M169 or Phy Sci 135 can be taken provided that student has already completed one elective for each of the 3 elective categories.

Option 2: Independent Research (1) Neuroscience 198A or 199A and (2) Neuroscience 198B or 199B** Fall, Winter, and Spring Quarters Pre-requisites: NS m101A & SRP 99 under same faculty mentor

Students who choose the NS 198A/B or NS 199A/B option must take 3 upper division electives, one from each elective option. Neurobio M169 and Phy Sci 135 do not apply. Poster required at the annual Neuroscience undergraduate poster session in Spring Quarter Please see here for detailed guidelines on enrolling in Neuroscience research courses. **Students pursuing Departmental Honors must sign up for NS 198AB instead.

PLEASE NOTE: You may ONLY do Neuroscience 199AB OR Neuroscience 198AB ONCE. If you'd like to continue with your Neuroscience research, please visit the Research page and review the requirements for Neuroscience 199C which may also only be taken once.

Option 3: Project Brainstorm Capstone NOTE: LIMITED CAPACITY (~6 students per Winter - Spring Quarter)

Project Brainstorm (usually offered as NS 192B) is an outreach class offered to Juniors and Seniors in which you have an opportunity to develop teaching lessons on Neuroscience that you present to local K-12 students.

To use Project Brainstorm to fulfill your capstone requirement, you must do the following: 1) Contact the organizer for Project Brainstorm and the undergraduate Neuroscience counselor to declare your intent to use Project Brainstorm for your capstone. 2) Commit to two consecutive quarters (Winter and Spring) of Project Brainstorm 3) Register for Project Brainstorm as a capstone by completing 199A/B contracts and have them approved by the faculty instructor. Opt for letter grading. 4) Participate in all activities of Project Brainstorm, including additional activities designated especially for capstone participants. 5) Prepare and present a poster on your Project Brainstorm experiences at Neuroscience Poster Day in the Spring Quarter of your participation in the capstone. The Project Brainstorm Capstone has been filled for Winter and Spring 2017. PLEASE NOTE Psychology 115 cannot be substituted for Neuroscience M101A; however, Physiological Science 111A can be substituted. A student will receive 0 credit units if Psych 115 is taken AFTER completing Neuroscience M101A. A maximum of eight units of Neuroscience 198 or 199 may be applied toward the major. All required and elective courses must be taken for a letter grade, and a 2.0 average must be maintained in all upper division courses taken for the major. Students will still need 13 additional upper division units in order to reach the 60 minimum required.

**MESSAGE REGARDING CHEM 153L (UPDATED 5/19/2017) Chemistry 153L is being removed from the upper division Neuroscience major core requirements. Here is how the change will affect you: If you are graduating in 2017 Spring, 2017 Summer, 2017 Fall, and 2018 Winter the change does NOT affect you.You still need to complete Chemistry 153L. If you are a junior and have completed Chemistry 153L, please contact Undergraduate Counselor, Megan Lebre, at mlebre@mednet.ucla.edu. All incoming students in Fall 17 (transfer and freshmen) as well as current freshmen, sophomores, and juniors that have not taken Chem 153L no longer need to complete Chem 153L for the major.

**MESSAGE REGARDING LIFE SCIENCES SERIES (UPDATED 6/16/2017) Below please find important information regarding enrollment in the LS 1-4 and LS 7 series. Please read through this information thoroughly; if you have any questions, please direct them to the Life Science Core office atlscore@lifesci.ucla.edu. Thank you. STUDENTS CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN LS 1, 2, 3 AND/OR 4 Complete the sequence. The timeline for offering these courses is scheduled as follows: LS 1 will be offered in Fall Quarter 2017. If you need this course, we strongly encourage that you take the course this term. LS 2 will be offered in the Fall Quarter 2017 and Winter Quarter 2018. We strongly encourage that you take this course by Winter 2018. LS 3/ LS 4 Both courses will be offered Fall Quarter 2017, Winter Quarter 2018, and Spring Quarter 2018. We strongly encourage that you take these courses by Spring 2018. LS 23L is not being eliminated. Students are, however, encouraged to complete LS 23L no later than Winter Quarter 2018. During this transition we expect a large number of students to take LS 23L starting in Spring 2018, therefore if you have the opportunity you should take it before then (ex: Summer 2017, Fall 2017 orWinter 2018). Any student who has conflicts with enrolling in these courses according to the timelines above should contact the Life Science Core office; every effort will be made to insure that students complete the series at the end of the 2017-2018 academic year. STUDENTSNOTCURRENTLY ENROLLED IN LS 1-4 If you have not enrolled in LS 1, 2, 3 or 4yet, you may begin this LS series during our Summer Session A and C. If you cannot take Summer courses, then you mayenroll in the LS 7 series. A small number of seats will be offered in Fall Quarter 2017 during June enrollment; if you want to try to enroll in this course, make sure to attempt to do so during your first pass. During the summer, some seats in LS 7A will be held for incoming students; any remaining seats will be made available to continuing students beginning on September 19, 2017. If you do not get an opportunity to enroll in LS 7A in Fall Quarter 2017, the course will be offered again in Winter Quarter 2018 and Spring Quarter 2018.

**MESSAGE REGARDING PHYSICS SERIES (UPDATED 6/9/2017) The Physics & Astronomy Department is transitioning to a new Physics series for Life Science majors. Students who have begun the Physics 6 series will have until Winter 2018 to complete the old Physics 6 series. After Winter 2018, the Physics 6 series will be completely phased out and replaced with the new Physics 5 series. Please take note of this to plan accordingly. Some additional notes about the Physics series that may be helpful:

More:
Neuroscience Major - UCLA UNDERGRADUATE INTERDEPARTMENTAL ...

In the last few decades, there has been a revolution in the field of neuroscience that is changing the way we live, love, and work. For many, it's been difficult to keep up.

We created this summit to bring you up to date with the latest discoveries that have immediate application in your lifein a straightforward and practical way that does not require a background in neuroscience or previous study of the brain.

The Neuroscience Training Summit is your chance to learn directly from the world's leading experts about their groundbreaking discoveries and, most importantly, how you can start to apply this wisdom to your life right away.

These experts will share with you the details of their research AND provide you with practical, experiential exercises and tools that you can use in your personal and professional lives.

To go even deeper with your exploration of this incredible wealth of information, we're offering a special upgrade package that gives you lifetime access to the teaching sessions of each of our 20 presenters, plus much more.

Thanks for signing up. We look forward to being with you on The NeuroscienceTraining Summit.

Tami Simon Founder of Sounds True

Excerpt from:
The Neuroscience Training Summit

The Jewish assumption of free will is ancient and enduring. But what does modern neuroscience have to say?

The history of neuroscientists efforts to explore the free will phenomenon was reviewed in 2016 by philosopher and neuroethicist Andrea Lavazza in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. The setting for our current understanding was drawn a half century ago with the discovery by Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deecke of the Readiness Potential (RP), a measurement of increased bio-electric activity in the brain. The RP was measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG), a procedure in which electrodes were placed on a subjects scalp to allow for the recording of bio-electric activity. This activity was seen as an indication of preparation for a volitional act.

One question raised by the discovery of RP was whether an individual was conscious of an intention to act before RP appeared. In the early 1980s, Benjamin Libet, a son of Jewish immigrants from Ukraine who became a neuroscientist at the University of California-Davis, sought to answer that question. Libet and his team designed a relatively simple test. First, subjects were wired for an EEG. To record muscle contraction, electrodes were also placed on subjects fingers. Then the subjects were asked to do two things, spontaneously move their right finger or wrist, and, with the aid of a clock in front of them, report to researchers the time they thought they decided to do so.

What Libet found (Libet et al. 1983) was that conscious awareness of the decision to move a finger preceded the actual movement of the finger by 200 milliseconds (ms), but also that RP was evident 350 ms before such consciousness. While Libet recognized that his observations had profound implications for the nature of free will, for individual responsibility and guilt, his report appropriately contained several caveats. First, it noted (at 640) that the present evidence for the unconscious initiation of a voluntary act of course applies to one very limited form of such acts. Second (at 641), it allowed for the possibility that there could be a conscious veto that aborts the performance . . . (of) the self-initiated act under study here. Finally (at 641), it acknowledged that the possibilities for conscious initiation and control in situations that were not spontaneous or quickly performed.

Not surprisingly, and despite the caveats, some interpreted Libets experimental results as proof that ones actions are not freely made, but, rather, predetermined by unconscious neural activity. In the years following the publication of Libets report, other experimenters have not only replicated his work, with more sophisticated measuring devices, they have extended it.

For instance, experiments reported in 1999 by Patrick Haggard and Martin Eimer involved index fingers on both hands, and they calculated both RP and lateralized RP. Subsequently, scientists at the Max Plank Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences also utilized right and left index fingers, this time to press a button, and his subjects reported awareness of action not by observing a clock, but by identifying one of many letters streaming by. Brain activity was detected by using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) signals. In a 2008 publication in Nature authored by Chun Siong Soon and others, Soon et al. claimed that brain activity encoding a decision could be detected in the prefrontal and parietal cortex for up to ten seconds before the subject became aware.

Also not surprisingly, the assumptions in and the interpretations of results from these experiments drew criticism, beyond the obvious concern about mistaking correlation (of recorded brain activity) with causation (of a decision to act). And they continue to do so. After all, the average human brain contains billions and billions of nerve cells called neurons. We have recently learned the number of neurons is approximately 86 billion. Each neuron is connected to other neurons by perhaps thousands of synapses, junctions through which neuroactive molecules or electrical impulses travel. The total number of these synaptic connections exceeds 100 trillion. Moreover, while we once believed the brain to be fixed, now we know that is more plastic, and changes constantly.

Even if we were thoroughly familiar with all of these connections, and all of the electrical and chemical processes which operate (or not), and when and why they do (or do not), and also had a complete grasp of neuroplasticity, which understandings we do not currently possess, we clearly do not understand what has been called the Hard Problem, the nature of consciousness. If we do not understand that, then obviously we also do not understand the nature of sub-consciousness. So, what exactly, if anything, Libet and Soon were observing other than some sort of recordable activity is not apparent.

More narrow objections could be and were raised, as well, to the early tests. Florida State philosophy professor Alfred Mele suggested that because subjects might have different understandings of the awareness of the intention to move they were to report, the term was too ambiguous to measure to any degree of scientific value. Moreover, even if some readiness potential could be measured, isnt it possible that RP itself is indicative of nothing more than the result of various stimuli, including being placed in a control room, hearing instructions, and focusing on a specific task? In this view, it would be akin to heightened anxiety that a patient might feel prior or during a conventional physical examination.

In addition, the tests performed were narrow in scope and duration. They generally involved very simple motor functions to be undertaken, or not, within seconds of some signal. But Princeton psychologist and Nobel Prize winning economist Daniel Kahneman teaches that we think fast and slow. His core observation is that humans operate with two different thought modes. In the first, known as System 1, the brain operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control. In the other, known as System 2, the brain allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations. Kahneman associates the operation of System 2 with what we feel as agency and choice.

Is it possible that a persons brain activity, as recorded by an EEG, an fMRI or some other mode of neuroimaging, would display different results in circumstances where more complex actions are involved, especially over an extended period? Is it conceivable that brain activity would be different if the subjects were in a kitchen and asked to choose how many, if any, eggs they wanted for breakfast, and how they preferred them cooked, and with what bread, what spread and what fruit and drink? And might that kind of brain activity be different still than the kind involved in deciding over the course of a presidential campaign which candidate to support or during courtship deciding whether to select a certain someone for a life partner?

We have no EEGs or other scans that address breakfast or political or marital choices, but some recent experiments suggest that the death of free will, as announced by Jerry Coyne and Sam Harris, may have been not just premature, but unwarranted. In 2012, French neuroscientists published a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concerning a study about RP which included a variation on Libets experiments, specifically an audible cue to the participants to make a movement in response to an unpredictable noise. Rather than reflecting the final causal stages of planning and preparation for movement, Aaron Schurger et al. found that neural activity in the brain fluctuated normally and that decisions about self-initiated movement were at least partially determined by spontaneous fluctuations in such activity. In other words, movement might not be determined subconsciously, but may simply occur when the brain is in a sufficient state of arousal.

Similarly, a study undertaken by graduate student Prescott Alexander and his team attempted to isolate motor and non-motor contributions to RP. As reported in 2016 in Consciousness and Cognition, they found that robust RPs occurred in the absence of movement and that motor-related processes did not significantly modulate the RP. This suggested to Alexander et al. that the RP measured was unlikely to reflect preconscious motor planning or preparation of an ensuing movement, and instead may reflect decision-related or anticipatory processes that are non-motoric in nature. They concluded, in part that RP does not primarily reflect processes unique to motor execution or preparation, and may not even be primarily generated by the neural activity involved in making a free choice.

What does this mean? At a minimum, Schurger and Alexander, and their teams, have interrupted what seemed to be developing scientific support for hard determinism and against free will. They have provided scientific grounding for an alternative understanding of previously accumulative data. In the words of cognitive neuroscientist Anil Seth (speaking of Schuger et al.), they have opened the door towards a richer understanding of the neural basis of the conscious experience of volition.

Consequently, when Alfred Mele argues that science has not disproved free will, he is correct. Science has not falsified the free will hypothesis even once, let alone in the kind of replicable experiment that is the hallmark of the scientific method. At the same time, science has not confirmed the free will hypothesis either. The unsettled state of affairs is not necessarily bad, though, for at least two reasons.

First, the reality is that we are at the early stages of our understanding of both the human brain and levels of consciousness, and we undoubtedly do not even know what we dont know. For instance, in 2015, neuroscientists were acknowledging that no one knew how the human brain was wired and bemoaning the fact that they could not even map a mouses brain, let alone a human one. About a year later, scientists were able to produce a map of the brains cerebral cortex with a new mapping paradigm, but even so, a participating researcher conceded the limitations of the new map. (See map below.)

Similarly, in early March, 2017, researchers led by neurobiologist and physicist Mayank Mehta at UCLA published a report in the journal Science in which they claim that the brain is much more active than previously believed and that neurons are not purely digital devices, as scientists have held for 60 years, but also show large analog fluctuations . . . . If so, according to Mehta, this changes the way we understand how the brain computes information.

The idea of a more powerful, dynamic brain may trigger yet more revisionism concerning free will, as well. Indeed, it is at least conceivable that the reductionists are looking at the picture in the wrong way, zooming in to try to locate and record each signal the brain emits, rather than stepping back for a broader perspective. That is, for all its amazing discoveries and insights, perhaps neuroscience, as commonly practiced today, is too narrow a science. Perhaps there must be some consideration for the possibility that the vast number of neurons and synapses, and their intricate interconnectedness, in conjunction with neural plasticity, yields something greater than the individual cells themselves, even as water is more than its component molecules made of hydrogen and oxygen. Perhaps consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. (See Nelson, The Emergence of God (University Press 2015) at 32-35.) In this view, at a certain level of collective complexity, consciousness emerges. And with it, free will.

From the history of science and technology, we can assume that the pace of our progress will be uneven and the results surprising. Perhaps we will move faster than did our ancestors on the centuries long path from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Hubble (both the man and the telescope). But how much time we will need is not clear. Consider the journey from Wilbur Wrights first step onto a biplane at Kitty Hawk to Neil Armstrongs first step off the lunar module Eagle on the Moon, and whether neuroscience is arguably more complex than rocket science.

Second, another reality is that the stakes in the multi-disciplinary debate between free will advocates and determinists go far beyond the musings of philosophers and the reputations of neuroscientists seeking grants and fame. Should science somehow disprove free will, should it show that we are not just influenced by our genes and our physical and social environment, but that our response to each option available to us is truly compelled rather than chosen, it is not too hard to imagine at least two dystopian results.

In the first case, should it be generally known that humans have no free will, and that conduct is in fact predetermined, significant numbers of individuals might well feel released from whatever tenuous social bonds now attach to them and engage in disruptive behavior. We already have some experimental evidence from psychologists Kathleen Vos and Roy Baumeister that supports the idea that weakening a belief in free will leads to cheating, stealing, aggression, and reduced helping.

A second worrisome situation that might arise concerns potential screening of individuals for genetic or environmental or other predispositions to anti-social behavior. Might individuals found to possess an anti-social gene be incarcerated or subjected to gene therapy to alter or remove the problematic genetic material? If so, it is not too difficult a leap to rounding up groups of people who, by virtue of their color, ethnicity, geographic origin, socio-economic status or other trait likely share having the offending gene. The infamous Nazi medical experiments on Jews, Roma and others provide a chilling example of the depraved capacity of some humans to mistreat the Other, and to do so ostensibly in the interest of science or some asserted greater good. Social historian Yuval Harari has warned recently about the merger of Big Data with Big Brother. It is a warning worth heeding.

In many ways, then, the free will hypothesis is more important than the understanding laid out in Genesis with respect to creation and evolution. We have learned a great deal about how our universe came into existence and how life forms have evolved. And we have learned that we can survive quite well with such knowledge. But if the free will hypothesis is incorrect, if we are only products of our genes and our environment and of the purely mechanical interplay of chemistry and physics, if we do not have any meaningful capacity to make choices, then we could still proceed as if we were free and our decisions mattered (a path advocated by some determinists like Israeli philosopher Saul Smilansky), but there would be a cloud hanging over us, and, worse, we could not dissipate it. We could not overcome.

Yet, even in the most dire circumstances, some do overcome. Recounting the horrors of the concentration camps, psychiatrist and neurologist Viktor Frankl noted that despite the conditions, the actions of some showed that everything can be taken away from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms to choose ones attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose ones own way.

Why some react one way under pressure (or without it) and others do not remains a mystery, as even Sam Harris has acknowledged. Maybe science will solve that mystery some day, but maybe not. So, perhaps Descartes (1596-1650) was not quite right when he declared Cogito, ergo sum, that is, I think, therefore I am. Perhaps thinking is a necessary but not sufficient element of being. Perhaps we need to be able to choose to be fully alive and vital. Consequently, until, if ever, the scientists prove otherwise: Eligo, ergo sum I choose, therefore I am. Or at least I think I do. And at least once every year I am grateful to the Deuteronomist for reminding me of the extensive menu of blessings and curses that is set out before me, and for his emphatic call to choose life.

Go here to see the original:
Judaism, neuroscience and the free will hypothesis (Part 2) - Jewish Journal (blog)