Do we use enough of our brains?

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145869888.html

According to this article, for most of us, not. Some of us do use more than others.

A look at the brain activity of a gifted mathematician shows he has more parts of his brain active when solving a puzzle than the average person.

 

[bPer]

Uh, let me get this straight.

"Gifted" kids and "ordinary" kids were given (presumably) the same video puzzles to solve, and it took more brain effort in the "gifted" kids' brains than in the brains of the "ordinary" kids, to solve the same puzzles? Sounds to me like the "ordinary" kids' brains are operating at a higher efficiency than the "gifted" kids' brains. This is a good thing?

I guess I must be gifted; I don't get it.

bPer

 

[fishbob]

Do we use enough of our brains?

Altogether ignoring the referenced article: Of course not.

 

[Yahweh]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145869888.html

According to this article, for most of us, not. Some of us do use more than others.

A look at the brain activity of a gifted mathematician shows he has more parts of his brain active when solving a puzzle than the average person.

Clearly that mathematician is thinking too much.

 

[LuxFerum]

What exactly this thing measure?

 

[BillyJoe]

Good one, bPer...

Uh, let me get this straight.

"Gifted" kids and "ordinary" kids were given (presumably) the same video puzzles to solve, and it took more brain effort in the "gifted" kids' brains than in the brains of the "ordinary" kids, to solve the same puzzles? Sounds to me like the "ordinary" kids' brains are operating at a higher efficiency than the "gifted" kids' brains. This is a good thing?

I guess I must be gifted; I don't get it.

BillyJoe.

 

[joyrex]

IMHO, I don't see thinking effort correlating directly with the amount of brain areas used. Rather the other way around; brain does 'thinking' for you - and this happens more efficiently the more your brain is used. Then again I have little knowledge on the subject. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember there are multiple models on how different congnitive operations are scattered around the brain. Are there any new accurate models for this or have they got any better?

Another perspective to study brain usage is the hemispheric dominance and it's meanings. Do you think there's any truth to this piece of information?

 

[Deetee]

Uh, let me get this straight.

"Gifted" kids and "ordinary" kids were given (presumably) the same video puzzles to solve, and it took more brain effort in the "gifted" kids' brains than in the brains of the "ordinary" kids, to solve the same puzzles? Sounds to me like the "ordinary" kids' brains are operating at a higher efficiency than the "gifted" kids' brains. This is a good thing?

I guess I must be gifted; I don't get it.

bPer

I guess you're being jus plain "ornery" bPer, but in case others might misinterpret the study, I'll clarify. The "gifted" kids who were better at solving the puzzles were found to be using more areas of their brain (in terms of activity).

 

[bPer]

I guess you're being jus plain "ornery" bPer, but in case others might misinterpret the study, I'll clarify. The "gifted" kids who were better at solving the puzzles were found to be using more areas of their brain (in terms of activity).

Yes, I was being "ornery", but I'm afraid I can't find a reference in the article that states that the "gifted" children were better at solving the puzzles than the "ordinary" children. I will admit that in the lower parts of the article, when the focus shifts to other issues, I skimmed the article, but Deetee, can you tell me where in the article it says they were "better"? I'll probably end up looking like a doofus, but I've re-read it twice, and I can't find it.

bPer

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, I was being "ornery", but I'm afraid I can't find a reference in the article that states that the "gifted" children were better at solving the puzzles than the "ordinary" children. I will admit that in the lower parts of the article, when the focus shifts to other issues, I skimmed the article, but Deetee, can you tell me where in the article it says they were "better"? I'll probably end up looking like a doofus, but I've re-read it twice, and I can't find it.

bPer

I think the implication was that because they were gifted, those particular test subjects were better at solving the puzzles. They also were able to put more of their brain to work when they did solve the puzzles. Which makes sense, since most brains are mostly built out of the same stuff, then being able to use more of your brain at once may be a way of giving you better intellect. Who knows, maybe the kid quoted in the article has poor social skills because part of this part of his brain has been hijacked for intellectual purposes.

 

[American]

I've never had enough respect for mere "signatures", which is what brain scans are. However useful they are, I feel a need to know the exact code that's being run in that neural network of cells. All a matter of neuronal engrams and signaling.. it would be nice to make sense of it so we can affect those mechanisms.

Statements like "depression is linked to an imbalance of seratonin..." I find that MEANINGLESS. Even knowing the nuclei of a certain region, and what's being secreted in response to whatever stimuli. That's just not enough.

I rather think any mathematical interpretation is impossible to simulate. Too many cells, making too many connections. If you did simulate it, wouldn't you have a real brain? Wouldn't a computer simulation of all those connections be a living system? I bet it would.

 

[bPer]

I think the implication was that because they were gifted, those particular test subjects were better at solving the puzzles.

Well, the whole article was rather 'fluffy', so perhaps it was just an oversight, but I think it should have been stated up front that the "gifted" kids actually outperformed the "ordinary" kids on the puzzles in question, to justify the conclusions. Otherwise, it was just a lazy assumption that "better in math"="better in everything".

They also were able to put more of their brain to work when they did solve the puzzles.

You do follow my argument, don't you, that for a given outcome (solving a puzzle in this case), using more resources to achieve that outcome is a handicap, not an asset, right?

Look, I don't want to make a big deal about this. I realize that, in general, being able to bring more mental muscle to bear on a problem will be an asset. In this case, though, I saw too many signs of junk science at play, and wanted to point that out.

bPer

 

[a_unique_person]

Look, I don't want to make a big deal about this. I realize that, in general, being able to bring more mental muscle to bear on a problem will be an asset. In this case, though, I saw too many signs of junk science at play, and wanted to point that out.

bPer

I think the scientists were not doing a junk experiment, just that the journalists once again did not do justice to a story.