Great Podcast about Memory

Got to talking last night to a fellow player in one of my favorite games.  Turns out that he's finishing his PhD in Neuroscience.  We pretty much nerded everyone else out of the chatroom discussing things like how children recover from brain trauma and such.

Anyway, he shared the following link with me: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Rat

Great podcast.  It explains the process of memory in a way laymen can grasp, while adding a few really mind-blowing discoveries that have happened in the past decade.  Of course, if you've been keeping up on the field, you probably already know it.  But if you haven't really been keeping up in the past 8 years, there will be at least one but you've might have missed out on.

You don't have time for a 22 minute podcast?  Here are the main points:

• Memories are stored in proteins.
• Certain drugs can stop those proteins from forming during the process of memory-making.
• When we remember events, we are actually reliving them, which causes them to be altered every time we remember them.
• The less you call up a memory, the more accurate it is.
• If we are given one of those drugs at the time we are remembering the memory, we lose that memory and only that memory.
• Inactive memories are not affected by these drugs.

These discoveries are already being used in different ways to help PTSD sufferers.

Observations on the Art of Acting from a Non-Actor

Occasionally I break my promise not to read the comments on videos.  It wasn't a deliberate act. I was scrolling to find a link at the bottom of the page when I saw this comment under an interview with Jim Parsons of the Big Bang Theory on CBS.com:

"I find it weird when actors separate themselves from their characters."

My first thought was "Someone is very unclear about the concept of acting."  And I could be very correct about that.  But at the same time, not all actors approach the art of acting in the same way.  Jim Parsons couldn't play Sheldon Cooper if he was like Sheldon Cooper, because a personality like Sheldon could never be an actor. Parsons doesn't even have the same interests. In his own words:

I don’t feel like I’m bringing much of anything when it comes to personal experience with him. For one, he doesn’t talk about anything that I have second nature of. Not only do I not have my own language for science, but for comic books, graphic novels, most science fiction, after Star Wars. I think this has been to my benefit and allowed me to connect with him more on a humanistic level because I don’t really get what he’s talking about 90% of the time.

From http://techland.time.com/2010/09/23/big-bang-theory-the-jim-parsons-interview/2/


People like Sheldon aren't emotionally aware enough to portray a realistic and humanistic view of themselves.  You need someone like Jim Parsons, who can portray him in a way that the rest of us can understand and identify with, while still being able to recognize as someone who is quite different from ourselves.  The same thing goes for the Evil Version of Wil Wheaton on The Big Bang Theory:

When he first talked to me about working on the show, Bill Prady told me that I'd be playing a "delightfully evil version" of myself. This sounded like a lot of fun to me, but it was more difficult to find that character than you'd think. When I'm playing Fawkes on The Guild it's easy to slip into his kilt and be a jerk, but wearing my own clothes and essentially playing a stylized version of myself made it a real challenge to hit "delightfully evil" without veering into "not committed to being delightfully evil" or "just plain evil." Keeping that twinkle in my eye, and knowing that Wil Wheaton (The Big Bang Version) is planning to scam Sheldon from the moment he sits down, was essential to this particular characterization working out, and I didn't completely find it until we'd run the episode a couple of times.

During one of the run throughs, when Jim did his Klingon bit, I turned to Kevin and asked him, "Did he just say 'revenge is a dish best served cold' in Klingon?" like I was trying to figure out if that's actually what happened, like maybe I misunderstood him. Chuck Lorre told me that it would be funnier if I was more exasperated. "You're just here to play this game, and now some guy is quoting Klingon at you. This happens everywhere you go," he said.

I sighed dramatically, and said, "Oh, it does." Everyone laughed, hard, and Chuck pointed his finger at me. "Yes. That is exactly the way to play that beat."

When Chuck gave me that note, I grokked how to play Evil Wil Wheaton (The Big Bang Theory version), and I could see the comedy in every beat I played for the rest of the show. I totally grew a level in comedy acting, and learned something about letting go of who I really am, so I could embrace the Delightfully Evil version of myself (who I seriously hope will return in the future, because OMG was it fun to play him.)

From http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2009/10/the-creepy-candy-coating-corollary.html


I think the evil version of Wheaton works because in reality, he's so not that way and is able to play a jerk because he doesn't have to be in denial that what he is doing is obnoxious.  He doesn't have to defend it or minimize it because it's not really him - it's a warped-alternate-reality him.  Of course, this is comedy, so exaggeration in proper amounts is essential for success.  This may also be why people say comedic acting is actually harder than dramatic acting.  You almost have to step outside yourself to be able to deliver these lines without becoming self-conscious about the whole thing.

Now on the other end of things, you have Viggo Mortensen who played Aragon in The Lord of the Rings.  By all accounts, Mortensen practically became Aragon. He carried his sword with him even into town and actually spent his days off riding the horses he used and even bought them because he bonded with them.  Being a dramatic actor, he goes to great lengths to become the character he's playing.  For Everybody Has a Plan, he learned his character's hobby, beekeeping.  He explains how he prepares for a role:

I think part of it is just how you prepare roles. When I prepare, I ask a simple question: “What happened between the character’s birth and page one of the script?” And right there you can find most of the answers, even before you start shooting. I find that process really enjoyable. Just like a kid does when he pretends: It doesn’t matter how little they look like a princess or an Indian or a Viking or a sports star, whatever they’re pretending to be, they really believe it. They enjoy playing, basically. So the goal is always — in a very serious, methodical, detailed, much more layered way, I suppose, intellectually, than kids use for make-believe — to get to the same place where it’s just fun and play. But you have to do your homework first, and that’s what I try to do.

From http://www.vulture.com/2013/03/viggo-mortensen-everybody-has-a-plan-interview.html

He's not kidding about being more layered.  He's not just playing Agustín in the movie, he also plays Agustín's ailing twin brother Pedro, and then plays Agustín pretending to be Pedro.  I haven't seen the movie, but based on the trailers, I don't see much of Aragon in those characters.  And let's face it, outside of cult films, an actor who can only play one character isn't going to be that successful.

Helen Mirren, who does an awesome job in both dramatic and comedic roles, approaches her craft much differently than Mortensen:

A light bulb went on in my brain. I thought, ‘That’s it! Just play what’s on the page.’ I’ve followed that ever since. If it says, ‘Over-the-hill, angry woman with no makeup gets out of bed,’ that’s what I’ll play. I don’t mess it up with, ‘What’s her back story?’

From http://www.simplyhelen.net/category/interviews/

Obviously, there are many different ways to be an actor.  You can be like Robin Williams and ad-lib when the spirit hits you, leaving the director and editors decide what fits with the story content-wise. Or you can be like Ian McDiarmid and memorize the scripts so thoroughly that you can easily change the delivery of said lines to fit the mood of the story, without derailing anything later in the plot.  It all depends on what works for you and the role you're playing.

Back to the young lady who posted the comment that started all of this musing.  While it would be easy to dismiss her as just lacking in knowledge, it's very possible that perhaps she, herself, doesn't have the capacity to separate - to imagine herself as someone much different than she is - to get inside someone else's experience.  So, it would be extremely mystifying that people can do this; she may even think that they really aren't doing what they say the are.

I'm just as guilty about this.  For over 30 years, I could never understand why people would not only eat cilantro, but relish it. To me, cilantro tastes like liquid dish soap.  I had assumed that people must have deliberately cultivated their love for the taste of soap, for reasons I couldn't fathom.  The closest I came to a reasonable explanation was to think that maybe they had their mouths washed out with soap too often as children, but that wouldn't explain the wide-spread acceptance of cilantro as a culinary mainstay. Then one day my best friend took me to a Mexican restaurant for lunch because I needed to get out of the house.  Already in a grumpy mood, I complained about the salsa dish not being rinsed out properly. She was about to ask the waiter to bring me another bowl, but I told her not to worry, I would just take my salsa from the center.  Then I tasted soap again, only this time I paused a moment and detected the taste of leaf behind it.  "Oh, it's cilantro," I said in a disgusted tone.  I then launched into my I-can't-believe-people-like-this-stuff rant, when she interrupted me with "Cilantro tastes like soap to you?" I nodded and she excitedly explained how they were discussing on her foodie mailing list that about one third of the population has a genetic tendency to taste cilantro as soap. She was extremely stoked to find out that she knew someone in real life that had this condition.  And I realized after all those years that the rest of humanity wasn't actually insane when it came to this herb, they just weren't tasting it the same way I was.

So, in answer to the woman who commented - actors separate themselves from their characters because that really is how they experience it.  Even though Jim Parsons "becomes" Sheldon for short periods of time, he's not Sheldon.  He's not a comic book geek.  He's not an arrogant physicist, who looks down on others.  He's no where near as socially clueless as Sheldon.  He's not even heterosexual.  But he can portray a character who is all of those.

And it's okay that you don't have the ability to separate from yourself and an imagined self.  I have several friends like that.  I used to think that they were like that because they were afraid of losing themselves in some way, or of weakening their moral compass.  But as I've grown older and studied more, I've found out that for some people, that's just the way their consciousness works.  Sure it frustrates the hell out of me sometimes when you're not able to understand any view different from your own, because running separate mental simulations is how I explore concepts and achieve empathy to a level that I am not naturally gifted with.  But I realize that I can be just as frustrating to you too.


I'm not sure how to exactly transition in this story into this post, but I really have the impression that it belongs here as part of the discussion of being someone else other than yourself. Many years ago, I created a persona for an online group my kids initially wanted to be a part of.  She was brash, out-spoken, devious, and a born leader.  She was also a Slytherin head of house. Even though my daughter lost interest in the online group, she liked pretending to talk to Prof. Mysteria Ester Paracelsus, and we had fun pretending together.  Then one day she came up to me, looking glum, and asked if she could talk to Mysteria.  I assumed that she just wanted to be cheered up, so I played along.  To my shock, she began to tell me about something that happened at school that upset her.  Staying in character, I gave her Mysteria's solution to such a problem - a solution that I would never advocate as her real mother.  Then I dropped the character and reminded her that I was always there for her; and that I didn't approve of the solution my alter-ego just gave.  She said, "I know, Mom.  You would have suggested (...), but I really needed to talk to someone who has no problem kicking butt."  I realized then that what she needed was a way to stand up for herself, not a way to be diplomatic and civil.

Some days, I think I need to channel Mysteria more often...

other examples of visual processing

Okay, previous attempt did not work. I may have to check a few settings in Google docs. Anyway, here's what I was trying to post.

The Many Faces of Suicide

During my first two decades of life, I strongly held the belief that suicide was the ultimate act of failure - at least for myself. Looking back on the suicides that entered my life when I was younger, I don't remember ever feeling disdain for the victim, but I do remember feeling very confused by their acts. My views on suicide became a little less black and white when a friend of mine took a job in a toxicology lab at a local hospital. Her greatest surprise was finding out that many people who overdosed on their medicines or sleeping pills weren't actually trying to end their life. When questioned after being revived, most of them were operating on the misjudgment that if they could sleep a few days straight or just increase their dosage, their bodies and/or minds would be healed and they would be able to live productive lives again. As she put it, "These people could have killed themselves and have no idea of what they had done until they entered the hereafter."

Another loosening of my views on suicide came when I entered treatment for clinical depression. I insisted quite fervently to my psychologist that not only was I not suicidal, but I would never even considered taking my own life because "that would mean that I screwed up my life so badly that not even God could fix it." He looked at me for a moment and then asked me if I had ever had any self-destructive thoughts or acts. I burst into tears. Despite my beliefs, I had indeed had those thoughts - to the point where I could not leave sharp knives out in the open, because I would have visions of me cutting myself in ways that would have lead to my death, had I done them. It was something I guarded against diligently. Every time I used a knife, it was either washed right then and put back in the drawer, or went immediately into the dishwasher. If neither option was available at that moment, it went under a dishcloth. It had to be out of my sight. I even moved my sharp knives to a separate drawer, so I wouldn't see them while getting other utensils. This experience taught me that even people who believed strongly against suicide, could have those type of thoughts.

Sociologist Emile Durkheim studied the social factors of suicide back in the late 1800s. While we tend to think of suicide as a highly individualistic act, it occurs within a social framework that shapes those acts. His research proposed four types of suicidal acts:

Egotistic suicide - These are people who are not well-integrated into the social network around them. Without the social bonds to fall back on for support and guidance, they are left to face their problems alone. These people can be disaffected for a variety of reasons: they're part of undesirable social group; they're highly individualized people; or they have an illness or disorder that makes creating social bonds difficult.

Altruistic suicide - These are people who are overly integrated into the social network around them. This is the kamikaze pilot, the suicide bomber, and the self-martyr. These people kill themselves in the belief that it will save others.

Anomic suicide - This happens when someone loses their standing in their social network. They are no longer guided by the rules they had come to depend upon, because those rules are either no longer relevant or have completely failed them. These are the people who suddenly lost their jobs or social positions, due to things like financial downturns, divorce, or scandal. Not knowing where they now fit into society, they decide that they no longer have a place in it.

Fatalistic suicide - These people are overly controlled by society, whose only real "freedom" is killing themselves. These people include slaves, prisoners and those oppressed by a totalitarian regime.

But social networks are not the only factor in suicidal behavior. Age and level of development is also a great influence on how and why suicide is committed. While it is a difficult concept for even professionals to come to terms with, pre-adolescent children do commit suicide. It's rare, but it does happen in situations where the family bond is weak (strong families rarely tell each other they wish that other family members were dead), especially if the child knows of others who have committed suicide. Children are more likely to commit suicides that can be dismissed as accidents, such as running into traffic or falling from high places. That's not to say that every child that dies this way has committed suicide--far from it. Accidents still are a major reason for childhood deaths; however, for a child who wants to end his/her life, doing similar acts on purpose is the easiest way to achieve their goal.

Adolescents are one of the most likely groups for committing suicide. It is the second highest cause of death for those between the ages of 15 to 24. The lack of problem solving skills among adolescent suicide victims, as well as the lack of parental bonding and guidance probably explains the cut-off point around age 24, which is around the time that the frontal lobes in the brain have finished developing. So it's possible that even those who have an elevated risk will have improved judgment by then. Rick factors include: poor parental-attachment; deficient problem-solving skills; alcohol and drug use in the family; seeing themselves different than their parents; socio-ecomonic adversity; exposure to sexual abuse; high rates of neuroticism; novelty; depression; anxiety; and conduct disorder. There is also a social element involved. Adolescents are more susceptible to cluster suicides--suicides triggered by other who have committed suicide. The attention give to the first suicide victim after the fact can appear to be the type of validation the following victims hope for, though they fail to take in account that they won't actually benefit from it. For this reason, some psychologists are warning Cornell University to be careful how they memorialize the students who have recently comment suicide there.

Adults over 25 who commit suicide are another class, altogether. For one thing, they are less likely to state their suicidal intentions in direct ways. Instead they will talk about not being useful or not being able to stand their current situation anymore. While some, due to delayed development, will behave similar to the adolescent group, most suicidal people from ages 25 to 65 suffer from anomic stressors like job losses, financial and health problems, loss of a loved one, as well as drug use, depression, and hopelessness. Behavioral signs are very similar to clinical depression, with the exception of gettings one's affairs in order. They tend to withdraw from others and start having troubles with sleeping, concentrating, and eating.

Elderly people are largest group to commit suicide and that's not even including those who commit chronic or passive suicide by letting their illnesses have their way or just stop eating and drinking. The group most likely to commit overt suicide in the US are 85 year old white males. The elderly are the most successful at their attempts and the least likely to give any warning of their intentions. Unlike younger people, the elderly rarely use suicide as a threat. Their reasons are often more calculated than emotional. Lack of finances and increases in health care cost often figure prominently in their decision, though depression, isolation, and lack of activity can be major factors. They will often have everything in order to make things easier on their loved ones. During my gerontology studies, a classmate gave a presentation on senior suicides. I will never forget the story she shared of a couple in their 80s, who not only had a file near them containing all their important papers and instructions for their children, but even went as far as laying on trash bags to make the clean up easier. Even my death, dying, and bereavement textbook gives a similar example of elderly suicide.

One type of suicide risk not covered so far is one I'm not sure the mental health industry really has a proper name for - suicidal thoughts caused by medication. Granted, most of these people probably have other risk factors, but based on personal experience, this is not something to tack on just as a footnote. A few years ago, I was placed on blood pressure medication because while my blood pressure wasn't in the danger zone, it was high enough to cause concern with my other medical problems. The first medication I was put up seriously messed with my attention and memory. I stopped driving my car because twice I forgot how to drive. Luckily, both times were in parking lots, and after a few moments I could call up enough of my memory to get me back home. When it became obvious that this side effect was not going to go away, I was switched to another medication. Within a day, I started to have suicidal thoughts. As a precaution, I put my knives out of easy reach. I challenged the thoughts each time they surfaced. Two days later, I took myself off the medication because not only were the thoughts coming just minutes apart, but when I tried to supress them, I began to get suicidal images. Within sixteen hours, I was no longer having those persistant thoughts. I later brought my blood pressure down dramatically by severely limiting the time I spent with negative relatives.

If you experience something similar, it would probably be a good idea to follow the first aid guides at WebMD for suicidal thoughts and not follow my example too closely.

And a final note: Recent studies have shown that animals do commit suicide. While I expected there to be suicides along the lines as the passive suicide done by seniors, having seen a few beloved pets go through this, I had not expected the evidence of animals committing altruistic suicides to protect their population. I do appreciatiate the following statement: "The big difference is that in modern humans that calculation can go wrong. There are some acts of suicide that do save lives. But most of the millions or so human suicides each year worldwide benefit no one, [Thomas] Joiner explained. They are acts that perhaps used to serve a purpose in early human societies, he said, but have lost their function in the modern world."

Subliminal stimuli processing

About a month ago, a friend of mine in the psychology profession, who is a fan of Derren Brown, had me watch this video:



It is an interesting experiment and a very well done one. I like the fact that they included two subjects who were internal controls. I think that it would be a very good idea to repeat the experiment for a larger population, with controls who hadn't even laid eyes on the CD they sent out. Another example of subliminal priming is Derren Brown influences two gentlemen who work in the US advertising industry. Even advertising professionals can be influenced. This video includes the explanation of how he did it. You might want to check out the UK version too.


Another interesting study is the Duke University Subliminal Ad Experiment:



Research=> Automatic Effects of Brand Exposure on Motivated Behavior: How Apple Makes You “Think Different”

This article first examines whether brand exposure elicits automatic behavioral effects as does exposure to social primes. Results support the translation of these effects: participants primed with Apple logos behave more creatively than IBM primed and controls; Disney-primed participants behave more honestly than E!-primed participants and controls. Second, this article investigates the hypothesis that exposure to goal-relevant brands (i.e., those that represent a positively valenced characteristic) elicits behavior that is goal directed in nature. Three experiments demonstrate that the primed behavior showed typical goal-directed qualities, including increased performance postdelay, decreased performance postprogress, and moderation by motivation.


What does this mean, besides the fact that humans can be easily manipulated? These experiments, tricks, and studies show that our minds process information on an unconscious level. In fact, it could be argued that some intuitive may come from this subliminal data processing. (Some intuition comes from the capacity to process things in a global manner.) This ability probably wasn't developed as a means to be influenced, though it probably helps with social interaction, but there is some evidence that it can improve our safety. The Gift of Fear written by security expert Gavin de Becker, suggests that the hunches and gut feelings we sometimes get come from picking up on certain cues that our conscious minds miss. It is a very easy and fascinating book to read, despite it's length. I highly recommend The Gift of Fear to anyone interested in personal safety or even just human behavior.

The way I see it, our minds have to regulate some of the processing of stimuli to the subliminal level because if it was all conscious, we'd get overwhelmed. And while this process can have some undesirable results, it does serve some very important functions.

Reasons why kids are sometimes better at technology

After finishing my masters, I decided I wanted a break before going on to a doctorate program. So at the moment I'm employed doing technical troubleshooting over the phone. While in training, the truism about children being better at technology was brought up. Our trainer confirmed that children were indeed easier to troubleshoot with - because they were better at following directions and did exactly what you told them and nothing more. As a parent, this sounded rather counter to my experience; however as a technician, I've found out that she was right. More often than not, the children I've talked to (after getting the parent's permission) weren't really all that more knowledgeable than Mom and Dad. Of course, as we're often reminded, the customer who actually know what they're doing are usually the last ones to call for technical support, but still there is a pattern between the two populations.

1. Children have less preconceived ideas on how something is supposed to work. It never fails to amaze me the expectations people have of electronic equipment. Despite the fact that they have to replace light bulbs in their homes, flashlights, and cars, there are people in this day and age who still think that electronics should last forever. The fact it comes with a time-limited warantee is completely lost on them. But even more frustrating is the customer who thinks they know how a piece of equipment works and tries to jump ahead of the technician. Children don't do this. They let you tell them what the next step is - even the teenagers.

2. Children focus more on the task and less on the embarrassment. When troubleshooting with a child, there hardly ever any self-esteem problems to deal with. They feel valued just by the fact that an expert is willing to work with them.

3. Children are literal. When you ask a child what is showing on a screen, they will tell you exactly what is on there. If you ask a child if the screen says something specific, they will tell you just that and nothing more. If you ask a child what a cable looks like, they never say it's just a cable.

4. Children are open to being taught. This one is sort of a combination of the others, but I've worked with adults who showed the other traits and still failed in this one. The last thing most technicians want is a customer to keep calling back with the same problem when it is something easily fixed. Also, an educated customer is less likely to panic the next time something goes weird. Panicked customers are always difficult to troubleshoot with.

I could probably tack on that children tend to be more trusting of the technician, but that isn't necessarily why they are better at new technology. And for the record, I've dealt with senior citizens who show these traits and several of them have actually taught themselves to be technically savvy at ages that most people would not thought possible. Elderly women in particular seem good at this. I suspect it is because they don't have the preconceived idea that they have to be experts at it. So you can teach an old dog new tricks, but that can't beat old dogs who can teach themselves.

Interested in the research on Happiness?

I'm sure that like me, many people find the research on happiness fascinating. I've done a post or two (three?) related to it in the past. I was about to do another one dealing with the newer research when I realized I was actually recovering territory already covered better by another blogger - Sandy Gauntam, writer of The Mouse Trap. The blog is practically dedicated to the subject of happiness at the moment. She does cover other topics there, though, too.

Here are a few of her posts on happiness research:
Am happy, will be selfish; Am sad, will be fair. Oh Really?!?
Happiness opposed to despair/ennui; sadness to anger/irritability
Am Happy, will talk more and deep; am Sad, will make small talk
Am happy, will seek novelty; am sad, will stick with familiar
Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why do you persist?

Do I agree with all her conclusions? Of course not. I rarely, if ever, competely agree with someone's conclusions. I'm genetically onery and have a family tradition of being slightly rebellious to uphold. However, she does an excellent job presenting the research and to be honest, I haven't really made my mind up on the subject yet.

And for your additional perusal, more articles on the subject from other sites:

Happy, Enthusiastic People Less Likely To Develop Heart Disease
Emotions Interfere in Theory of Mind
The Proof’s in the Positive Thinking

Using the Web in a right brain way

Pivot is a bit like how the right brain sorts and compares data, looking for patterns, anomalies and relationships. Like the right hemisphere, Pivot relies on global processing and dealing with generalities. I suspect as it becomes more used, Pivot will also specialize in finding patterns that can be described visually, but are difficult to describe in words. And like the right brain, Pivot arranges visual stimuli by appearance, using stored data to arrange parts.

Our right brains take simultaneous streams of information and created a master collage of that moment, using images, sounds, tastes, smells and feelings (both tactile and emotional). It manipulates those streams of information in ways not unlike Pivot's algorithms. What is amazing is that the right hemisphere is better at catching errors than the left. It is easier to prime, benefiting from even the weakest association. It is also easier to update with new information.

The "Dawn of Reason" gave humanity the opportunity to hone many left-brain dependent processes. I foresee this as the "Dawn of Global Analysis", which will hone many right-brain dependent functions in the decades and maybe centuries to come. I look forward to the other data analysis tools that will be spawned by this.

Visually thinking and different types of minds

Temple Grandin talks about thinking in pictures. I am so grateful that she has been able to find a way to verbalize how she visually processes things. There is no way I could possibly match her explanations. I straddle verbal and visual processing, but that doesn't mean that I totally understand a visual mind that doesn't has the access to the verbal skills I have. I know that I use visual processing. I also know that there I have not fully developed my visual processing ability. Verbally and mathematically, I had the training. I've been writing poetry since I was seven years old, thanks to my second grade teacher, who introduced poetry writing as part of an English/spelling lesson.

In this world of internet videos, I hope that more people like Temple Gardin are able to show us how to visually think - not only for those like me who intuit its power extends further than we see, but for everyone's benefit.

Visual Processing

I am a very visual person. I was raised by an artist and a computer programmer. This gave me access to artistic and flow-charting techniques. My dad used give my siblings and I flow chart templates to make art when we were young. When I became older, he explained what some of the shapes meant and then made a game for me. He'd give me a simple task and I would diagram the steps to do it, using those shapes properly.

As a family, we made almost weekly trips to the public library, bringing home art and music in addition to a multitude of books. Our home library sometimes had better references than my school's library. Arguments between myself and the sister just younger than me were usually solved by encyclopedias at ten paces. My mother made sure we had art classes. My dad made sure we had science lab kits. As a family, we made candles, leather and other crafts. Dad would also print out wall-size mazes which we kids and my mother would solved together. When I learned how to process information, it was not only through the verbal and mathematical means, but also visual and kinetic means.

I'm right handed, left eyed, and I have no dominant foot preference. I have taken math courses up to and including partial differential equations and I have about the same amount of credit hours in studio art as I do math. It probably follows without saying that my favorite math class was analytical geometry. I feel that this makes me qualified to make the follow statement:

Calculations can be done visually as well as mathematically.

Anecdotal evidence: When I was in high school, my mother took one of my classmates and I to an UIL science competition. Between the tests, the contestant schools could work on brain teasers. One of them was a word problem about how much material a sculptor would need if they made a bust twice as large in every dimension. While my extremely intelligent classmate began to do the mathematical calculations, my mother read the problem and immediately gave the correct answer. After verifying it with math, my shocked classmate asked my mother how she did the calculation. She used pictures and hand gestures to explain her thought process. He was totally lost by her explanation, so I gave him an interpretation he could understand. For the rest of the problems, my classmate and mother answered them with their own methods, while I translated between the two of them. In every case, both methods gave the same answers.

Historical evidence: All those wonderful geometry and trignometry relationships started out as a function of the relationships between visual elements such as lines, points, angles, planes and solids. M. C. Escher discovered several crystallography relationships years before the mathematical models, through purely graphical means. While many mathematicians hold Escher in the highest regard and consider him to have had an exceptional mathematical mind, he actually did very poorly with math in school and struggled to understand the mathematical treatises sent to him when he was older.

So, having made put that pet peeve to rest, I will share with you a diagram I made a few months ago showing visual processing as part of the problem solving process. While I do not detail how to do math visually (perhaps I will do that in another post), the diagram does show some of the ways visual processing has brought about solutions -> http://cosmicsiren.blogspot.com/p/diagram-of-visual-processing.html



O’Connor, J. J. & Robertson, E. F. (2000). Maurits Cornelius Escher. MacTutor History of Mathematicians. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Printonly/Escher.html

Art and Thinking

When I read some of the theories about how art began with humanity, I can't help but compare them to how drawing develops in children. There is such a strong connection between drawing development and cognitive development, as well as manual development, in children that it is hard to believe that "art" began as some dream state as some might claim. I'm not saying that it doesn't create an altered mental state, because it does. I'm just saying that art's beginning is entwined with the process of thought and the communication thereof. The existence of pictographs before writing also strongly points to a hand and hand relationship between art and communication. There is research that shows a connection between language and cognitative ability:

Neural correlates of Early Stone Age toolmaking: technology, language and cognition in human evolution.
Does Language Shape What We Think?

So it really shouldn't be that hard of a leap to connect drawing to the cognition process. Recently, I watched an older TED talk which showed this connection in a interesting way. I'll let Gever Tulley explain...



His observation that the act of decoration is part of the creative problem solving process, a method for letting the mind wander freely for a while, presents an possible insight into how our minds work. Tulley takes things a step further, introducing how manual development helps us mentally in this next talk.



I like the idea of his tinkering school. I like it even better that he can back his views up with anthropology and other science.

Private and public artistic exploration

I firmly believe that art is an effective means of personal exploration. Even if we do not gain great insight or find personal significance in doing artwork, our minds gain visual and kinetic experiences that help to fine tune our mental processes. I touch on this concept briefly my last post. The following film clip shows some representational examples of artists who explored their medium.


Warning: there is profanity in this clip. You probably don't have to watch it to understand my next points, so feel free to skip it if you wish.

The way I see it, the artists did gain a lot from the creation of their art. Their personal exploration probably did help them to reach a better understanding of their world. However, I do side with the established painter cohersed into juding that art show. It was the actual process and not the finished work that created that transformation, so the art itself said nothing because the context had passed.

All art is useful, but not all art is communicable. There is a difference between the act of making art and the finished work. Cultural art is something that should speak to observer. If it does not, then the conversation that should happen between masterpiece and observer is missing, and there is no enlightenment nor increased understanding.

Personal art needs only to speak to the artist. Under the right circumstances, a single line on a piece of paper can open the gate to passion, clarity, and wisdom--but it will only speak to that artist. It is the artist's conversation with the universe. Such a piece of work should rightly be treasured by the artist, but not necessarily enshrined for the rest of humanity. That would be telling people that this line has now been done, there is no need for more. Instead, the line should stay with the artist's heart and she should encourage others to find their own lines, to unlock their own passions and wisdom.

Which type of art is more valid? The very question itself is blasphemy in my opinion. Without cultural art, we lose our soul as a society. Without personal art, we can lose our very minds.

I must take a step back from my philosophical gushing and point out that even personal art needs to be shared to fulfill its purpose. In art therapy, this is known as "witnessing". Witnessing is when the artist shows the work to a supportive person, who lets the artist tell them what it means to them personally. There is no critique, no suggestions, just an act of listening to the sound of one person's soul being reveal.

At the same time, there is much to be gained by playing around with the art of others, as long as the original works are left physically untouched. It provides an interaction between the artwork and the audience, making the original piece more meaning ladened and important as the conversation continues. The following talk, though mostly meant to be humorous, is a prime example of entering into conversations with well-known artworks.



Granted, the conversations can become turbulent in some cases, but once you develop a personal relationship with a piece of work, it becomes alive and part of your mental fabric. Your brain now has a larger visual vocabulary to work with.

Here are a few sites online that will let you have your own conversation with art. Enjoy the process!





Shockwave needed.

The Basis of Knowledge

David Deutsch starts out shaky in the talk, but stick with him. He hits his stride half-way through and then he is amazing.



Bad explanation: easy to vary

Good explanation: Hard to vary assertions, details have functional uses

Explanationless theories - bad science

99% of Perception is Decision

Confession here--when I first saw the actual title of this video, a prejudice kicked in. Over the years, I have become very cynical about claims that computer programmers can build virtual versions of the human brain--supercomputer or otherwise. So, I almost didn't watch this video because of a pre-decided condition, one that is actually hypocritical considering my interest in cognition. I don't feel all too horrible about it. First off, it is a very common occurance in humans, even those who should know better. Second, and more importantly, my conscience pointed out my hypocrisy and nagged me until I made a commitment to watch this--thus maintaining my intellectual integrity on the matter.

I am so glad I watched this video. Because instead of seeing a theory built on narrowly conceived philosophies, I saw something that included perception as well as neuron activity. With no disrespect to Jeff Hawkins*, Henry Markham and his colleagues have a fuller theory of the brain, one that consists of holistic elements, as well as detailed ones. Their theory isn't stuck into a left brain world, but embraces both hemispheres of the brain--and the graphics used to show their points are not only extremely artistic, fascinating, beautiful and informative, but also examples of right brain/left brain cooperation. Their calculations are not only the mathematical, molecular side. These scientists actually have stepped backed and analyzed the big picture patterns of their results, realizing that they need to understand the "forest" in their work, as well as the "leaves".

I am tempted to say everyone should see this video; however, realistically, this video will be of more interest to you if you also have a fascination with cognition and perception. I will still maintain that those in the field of psychology and counseling, or consider themselves "scientific" should watch this video. You cannot understand a person or data, without understanding how your mind and others perceive it. You will be doing yourself a major diservice if you don't watch the following video:



Highlights for the less excited about brain science:

• 2 billion people are affected by mental illness in the world today.
  
• The theory they are using specifically - "The brain builds a version of the universe and projects this version of the universe, like a bubble, all around us."
  
• Finally gives a decent explanation for an optical illusion that was considered unexplained - why the moon looks so big at the horizon. It's not because of light bending. It's because we make it fit our other visual references.
  
• Explains how anesthetics work. They doen't put the brain to sleep, they create a static noise in the brain that keeps the neurons from talking to each other. I think this may explain why hypnosis can be used instead.
  
• "99% of what you see does not come in through the eyes. It is what you infer about that room." This is why people can look at the same thing and come to vastly differing conclusions. In counseling, it is why it is important to understand how the client perceives things and why they are the ones who actually have to be part of the creation of a healthier mentality. You can't just overlay your perceptions on other people.
  
• Shows that for the next hundred years, we can set aside the philosophical side of the above point and ask concrete questions about the brain's ability to do this, which can be tested scientifically.
  
• Mammals need a more complex brain because they had to deal with parenting, social interactions, and complex cognitive functions.
  
• Excellently done video clips that help explain brain development and structure.
  
• Shows how details and general overviews can work together, allowing a better understanding of our world.
  
• "The most important design secret of the brain is diversity."
  
• Shows in mathematical graphic how we can be different on the "leaf" level and still be alike on the "forest" level.
  
• Looking at the raw electical energy and the forms created by it, within the neocortical column.
  

*I still that Jeff Hawkins is correct with his theory of intelligence. He just doesn't expand it to perception.

Positive Psychology

Martin Seligman goes beyond the disease model in psychology and how to improve human lives, by examining the positive mental states.



Summarizing types of "happy lives": The pleasant life (full of pleasure) is inheritable and not very malleable. The engaged life (or good life) is full of flow, even if there isn't much emotion involved. The meaningful life is to work towards or for something larger than yourself.

The full life has all three, though the pleasant life gives the least amount of fulfillment of the three.

Prediction - the hallmark of intelligence

Even if you're not into physics and math, the following video also talks about balance and beauty, with gorgeous visuals.



A long way to go to fit a pattern, don't you think? Why do we seek for patterns? It is a very human thing to do and it helps us predict future possibilities. Jeff Hawkins talk makes a very good argument of what intelligence actually is.

What happens in a prison-like environment

I really should have added this to the post on brain damage and the environment, after Dr. Pinker's talk on violence, but I had temporarily forgotten it. This video shows how quickly normally good people can turn into monsters if the conditions are right, even if they don't have a genetic predisposition to do so. I have one very morbid friend who thinks the experiment should have been continued; however, there is no need for that. All one has to do is read up on prisons, and especially prisoners of war, to see where it would have led. We've always had tons of data on that front. The data missing was what type of people were the guards before they fell into this mindset. Once the mindset was achieved, there was nothing new to gain by continuing the experiment. (And, of course, it would have been extremely unethical.)

I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in some groups that use hazing. The only difference is that once the initiate lives through the hazing period, they get to become part of the "guards".

Creative Environments

Not a TED.com video, but still a wonderful example of a creative workplace.




It is a shame that not all engineers are like Golan Levin, who I will discuss in the post after the next one. I admire the BMW design team's sensitivity to their engineering colleagues; however, it really irritated me that the engineers at BMW couldn't think outside their own box. It seems to me that, while the communication part is very important, that the engineers themselves could use a good dose of Google's environment.

Creativity and play

The 30 circle test reminds me a little of when I did figures in my Drawing I class in college. We first did several drawings of our instructor with only 30 seconds per pose. Then we did a few drawing with a minute per pose. The last two poses for 5 and 10 minutes, respectively. What the exercise did was force us to just draw what we saw, without pausing to edit. Obviously, we only got basic forms at first. But this carried on to the longer drawings and I have to admit that I did much better drawing of human than I had in any other art class before. So, getting past the self-critiques (and external critiques) for a period of time does more than increase creativity, it also improves skills. Creative writing works much better if you wait to edit until after you've written the story. Starting to edit in the midst of creating will deaden the creativity and stunt the work. Editting happens after the creative period, no matter what you are working on. Or in Tim Brown's terms, the convergence period happens after the divergence period.

This next talk is also by a Brown - Stuart Brown:



It amazes me how much we have weeded out adult playfulness in the past couple of centuries. My son did a report of historical children's games last year and we were both surprised to find old books full of adult-too games. In fact, it was hard to find written resources of children-only games before the 1900s. A side-effect of the Industrial Revolution, I suspect.

Both videos underscore the need for kinistetic activity in problem solving. Though I didn't use it in my capstone, I did find a study on how swinging one's arms helps one to solve problems with a swinging element, while researching how the right and left brain function cognitively.

Back to the talk - while the meeting suits are fun, I can imagine all sort of sexual harrassment potential. But I can't deny that it is creative.

The hold of creativity

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi discusses creativity, fulfillment, and flow in this following video:



In it, he tries to describe the paranormal feeling felt in midst of being creativity - basically, that the mind is so focused that it leaves no room in the mind for the monitoring of self or other distractions. He also lists seven attributes of being in creative "flow":

1. focused and concentrated
   
2. a sense of estacy
   
3. great inner clarity
   
4. knowing that it can be done
   
5. a sense of serenity
   
6. timelessness
   
7. the process is its own reward
   

A perfect example of being in creative flow is Adam Savage's talk about his creative obsessions:



If the humor is not enough, it is an incredible example on how creative people need research and knowledge to feed their creativity.

And as he says: "Achieving the end of the exercise was never the point of the exercise to begin with."