neuroscience

Severance is great, but it gets one thing weirdly wrong. (Very mild) Spoilers for season 1 of Severance ahead.

First, if you haven't seen Severance, I recommend it! Bookmark this, go watch season 1, form your own opinions, and come back to chat.

Ok, people who have context for what I'm about to say, read on!

I couldn't finish the show the first time I tried. I got about half way through, but the fundamental horror of the protagonists' situation was simply too disturbing for me. Friends would say "Oh it's so great, it's so funny and weird. What a thought provoking idea!" 

And I'd be sat there barely able to breathe at the idea that someone's life could be an unbroken experience of being at work, in a windowless building. 

Based on these conversations, I genuinely think many people aren't actually fully imagining what's happening to the characters. It might also be because I was working as a full time employee, in front of a computer all day, during that first attempt.

Second attempt, I managed to dial down my vicarious horror enough to get through the season, and it is a great show.

Now the part I think the writers get wrong. 

I think, in one important way, they also failed to fully empathize with the situation. 

Mark, the main character of season 1, is presented as having chosen to become severed and work at Lumen as a way of dealing with and escape from the grief of the loss of his wife.

Superficially, this makes sense. It's a common trope, and makes psychological sense to me, that people often deal with grief by pouring themselves into work. So that, for at least those hours of the day, you have a distraction from the pain.

But getting severed would actually have the opposite effect. It would remove that tool from your life. It would mean you had one less way to escape the grief. Rather than waking up filled with grief, then going to work, and getting a few hours of relief, before going home and picking up the grief, you would wake up with the grief, head to work, and then immediately be coming home where your grief filled existence could continue, uninterrupted.

You might argue that it was Mark who missed this, when he made the choice, and now he's dealing with the consequences. But that's not in the text. What's in the text is just the implication that getting severed was Marks strategy for dealing with the grief, with no exploration of the fact that actually that's a horrible strategy. 

Thoughts? Counterpoints? What did you think of the show?

(ps, I'd just like to say how delighted I am that the generated images are now optional 🙏)

is "The Body Keeps the Score" misleading, or even flat out disproven? I think this is an extremely important topic. So many people's ideas about trauma rest on the writings of Peter Levine and Bessel van der Kolk (The Body Keeps the Score author)—but what if they just don't hold up to scrutiny, and the "science" they reference doesn't exist or is misinterpretted? This substack article is provacative, but I like it because it's someone who might be coded "left" or "hippie" by a bunch of other beliefs.. Admittedly, I skimmed, and I got recommended it because i have my own views about the trauma mindset's shadows, but would be super curious people's thoughts.

here are some juicy tidbits:

 much of this science is uncertain at best, and in some cases was discredited decades ago. 

polyvagal theory, which van der Kolk heavily references, has been disproven. Paul Grossman, from Universitätsspital Basel in Switzerland, writes in this paper that the basic premises of polyvagal theory “have been shown to be either untenable or highly implausible based on the available scientific literature.”

I wish we talked more about the legions of people walking around who have trauma histories who have managed to lead healthy, happy lives. In my first few years as a therapist, I noticed that contrary to the trauma narratives we see reflected in pop culture, people who have traumatic experiences are often not irrevocably damaged by it, but instead use internal and external resources to overcome it. They form healthy relationships, have meaningful careers, and raise loving families. These trauma survivors are not unicorns.

and

 Part two debunked Peter Levine’s claims that trauma is stored in your body and needs to be released. 

"Levine makes claims that are not supported by research and makes promises he cannot keep. He has contributed to fears that everyone has the residue of trauma lurking in their bodies by broadening the definition of trauma until it applies to any stressful experience. By exaggerating the degree to which traumatic memories are repressed, Levine (along with van der Kolk) has promoted the widespread fear that hidden trauma is causing somatic symptoms, even for those who have no memories of unpleasant experiences.

is "The Body Keeps the Score" misleading, or even flat out disproven? I think this is an extremely important topic. So many people's ideas about trauma rest on the writings of Peter Levine and Bessel van der Kolk (The Body Keeps the Score author)—but what if they just don't hold up to scrutiny, and the "science" they reference doesn't exist or is misinterpretted? This substack article is provacative, but I like it because it's someone who might be coded "left" or "hippie" by a bunch of other beliefs.. Admittedly, I skimmed, and I got recommended it because i have my own views about the trauma mindset's shadows, but would be super curious people's thoughts.

here are some juicy tidbits:

 much of this science is uncertain at best, and in some cases was discredited decades ago. 

polyvagal theory, which van der Kolk heavily references, has been disproven. Paul Grossman, from Universitätsspital Basel in Switzerland, writes in this paper that the basic premises of polyvagal theory “have been shown to be either untenable or highly implausible based on the available scientific literature.”

I wish we talked more about the legions of people walking around who have trauma histories who have managed to lead healthy, happy lives. In my first few years as a therapist, I noticed that contrary to the trauma narratives we see reflected in pop culture, people who have traumatic experiences are often not irrevocably damaged by it, but instead use internal and external resources to overcome it. They form healthy relationships, have meaningful careers, and raise loving families. These trauma survivors are not unicorns.

and

 Part two debunked Peter Levine’s claims that trauma is stored in your body and needs to be released. 

"Levine makes claims that are not supported by research and makes promises he cannot keep. He has contributed to fears that everyone has the residue of trauma lurking in their bodies by broadening the definition of trauma until it applies to any stressful experience. By exaggerating the degree to which traumatic memories are repressed, Levine (along with van der Kolk) has promoted the widespread fear that hidden trauma is causing somatic symptoms, even for those who have no memories of unpleasant experiences.

looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".

The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts. 

- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1

I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.

I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things. 

more quotes in case you don't read the article:

neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages

the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).

The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009). 

looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".

The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts. 

- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1

I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.

I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things. 

more quotes in case you don't read the article:

neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages

the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).

The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009). 

looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".

The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts. 

- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1

I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.

I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things. 

more quotes in case you don't read the article:

neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages

the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).

The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009). 

looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".

The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts. 

- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1

I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.

I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things. 

more quotes in case you don't read the article:

neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages

the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).

The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009). 

looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".

The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts. 

- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1

I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.

I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things. 

more quotes in case you don't read the article:

neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages

the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).

The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009). 

looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".

The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts. 

- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1

I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.

I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things. 

more quotes in case you don't read the article:

neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages

the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).

The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009). 

looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".

The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts. 

- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1

I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.

I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things. 

more quotes in case you don't read the article:

neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages

the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).

The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009). 

looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".

The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts. 

- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1

I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.

I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things. 

more quotes in case you don't read the article:

neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages

the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).

The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009). 

Please help me stay intellectually honest! I'm not a fan of generative AI in general, and LLM technology specifically. I think its capabilities are being drastically over-hyped. It's a perfect, sweaty example of a solution looking for a problem. I'm skeptical of many claims people are making wrt how it's helping them.

My experience is it's like having access to an idiot-savant intern. Awful at most tasks, but knows everything and can read incredibly quickly.

Publicly, I've taken on the mantle of a staunch critic of generative AI and a pro-human, pro-soul advocate.

And for the most part, I'm happy with that stance. I like it. It feels good to rail against something, and it feels good to contrast a thing that I hate against something I love. It throws the love into more relief.

Yet, I don't want to lose any babies in that bathwater, and I don't want to lose my intellectual honesty in the neurochemical rush of fighting for a cause. So I'd love to explore the best use cases of LLMs that you all are actually using, and actually finding beneficial, life improving, productivity increasing, all of that.

I'd love to hear your experience, and ideally, you'd to tell me how you're doing what you're doing with it in enough detail so that I can try it.

I'll start.

Absolutely most useful thing I've found for it so far, and it's not even close, is language learning.

I'm in a slow process of learning Japanese, and asking a chatbot to break down the grammar of a specific sentence is super useful. It's also great for generating content for flashcards. Say you have a set of characters, and you want some example words that use each particular character. It's so easy to generate stuff like that.

Outside of that, I use it in super basic ways (basically as google with one less step).

So please, give me your best use cases, things that you've not only been impressed by, in a "oh wow, that monkey can tap dance!" way, but that has actually improved the quality of your life.

PSA on using ChatGPT to edit writing- 

We’ve probably all read text that was obviously written by AI. If you’re using AI to edit writing- pro tip: rather than have the tool write anything for you, instead ask it to ask you questions, suggest what you’ve missed in your writing, what you could add to make your message clearer, or to just provide an outline with some notes about what to improve. Explicitly instruct it to not rewrite your draft so you don’t get AI brain. Using this method allows you to get some insights, while still getting to write in your own voice. 🌈

"Mom Brain". I was aware before I got pregnant that the "Mom Brain" phenomenon (brain fog, forgetfulness, etc) often has its onset during pregnancy but it has been really fascinating to experience firsthand what this is like sensationally (?) and emotionally. The "Mom Brain" seems to be gradually more and more noticeable and apart from objectively catching myself in more goofy little mistakes I am also noticing the like funny ambiguous itchy feeling that translates into the verbal though "I feel like I'm forgetting something" is becoming more and more common for me. I am a pretty starkly type A person and I am surprised how confronted that part of my identity feels as I make trivial mistakes that feel "out of character" for me - this experience has been so rare for me that I feel really "caught" when it happens and I don't have a script, relationally with others or my self, for handling these brain farts 💨

silver lining: becoming a mother is obviously a huge transition that will entail the death and rebirth of many aspects of my identity - it can't hurt to be getting a taste of that process early on in the second trimester lol

"Mom Brain". I was aware before I got pregnant that the "Mom Brain" phenomenon (brain fog, forgetfulness, etc) often has its onset during pregnancy but it has been really fascinating to experience firsthand what this is like sensationally (?) and emotionally. The "Mom Brain" seems to be gradually more and more noticeable and apart from objectively catching myself in more goofy little mistakes I am also noticing the like funny ambiguous itchy feeling that translates into the verbal though "I feel like I'm forgetting something" is becoming more and more common for me. I am a pretty starkly type A person and I am surprised how confronted that part of my identity feels as I make trivial mistakes that feel "out of character" for me - this experience has been so rare for me that I feel really "caught" when it happens and I don't have a script, relationally with others or my self, for handling these brain farts 💨

silver lining: becoming a mother is obviously a huge transition that will entail the death and rebirth of many aspects of my identity - it can't hurt to be getting a taste of that process early on in the second trimester lol

Brain as a Prediction Machine. This is my first post on here since Dara invited me a few months ago. Feels like it might be a fun place to discuss consciousness and brains.

In my Cognition and Emotion class in grad school, we just watched this video. In it, Andy Clark discusses the Predictive Processing framework for consciousness. As I understand it, basically the hypothesis is that brains are prediction machines. They model the world the state of the environment moment-to-moment. They're constantly updating models of the world and using both outside data and internal models to construct perception. The main "stuff" of consciousness (qualia) are prediction errors--data that wasn't already predicted by the models. 

What do ya'll think about this hypothesis?

Edit: Video I put in the URL doesn't seem to be showing up, so pasting it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1Ghrd7NBtk

My therapist says... if you have a disorder (I’d call this an undesired response + occurring regularly), don’t apply any strategies, any self-regulating methods to meet the stimulus. Don’t try to lower the fear. Any safety strategies will likely keep it in place.

When you do any kind of method you tell your nervous system this is truly dangerous. You need to show your primitive brain that this isn’t dangerous: I don’t have to do anything.

…

This feels so right in me. What a relief actually!

It feels related to what Jordan said earlier, that naming safety creates feelings of unsafety, making us more aware of what could go wrong.

Similarly, naming trauma encourages people to feel into their traumas, leading to distress…creating the opposite of what is intended.

Showing up to a disorder with a strategy is like an invitation to experience more of it.

What do you guys think?