Sign in with Facebook
Farha Crystal's Reviews > The Brain that Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science
The Brain that Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science
by
by
Neuroplasticity as a double-edged sword can cause flexibility or rigidity to the brain tissues.
Neurons in the brain connect themselves as you use them. Each brain function is competing for limited resources and there is limited mapping space. So, what you have worked on the most gets developed. It's similar to physical exercise, the more you practice it in a certain way, the more you will get flexible in certain body parts resulting in more automaticity and the reduction of resources necessary to complete a specific move/task. Conversely, if you don't exercise, you will get overwhelmed and trapped with the same cycle of procrastinating exercise. Furthermore, unlearning is a lot harder than learning in a similar way because every repetition of that old habit made it stronger to change further.
Now, the brain's ability to change depends on learning through experience( outside stimulants, turning on some genes in catalyst environments...).
So, the concept that the certain brain parts were "hardwired" to perform specific tasks were overthrown by its capacity to deny the death of those brain cells( it can simply rewire to accomplish tasks ).
The book was so lucid and well consuming but I don't want to have dinner with Norman Doidge for a personal reason( emotional ok? :P ). He described all those experiments on those poor animals such as rats, monkeys, kitten ... in a zombie mode :(. There is another reason, his attitude seems like " If your brain doesn't work like a so-called functional brain then there is something wrong with your brain, so you have to get better with outside stimulants " ( Pardon me, If I misunderstood him ... and I'm open to reread him again :) )
The concept of "change" itself is a fascinating, open path to be promoted/encouraged but when the ethic propaganda "change is for good/bad/better/worse"
is promoted to control diversity forcefully then it goes really sickening.
But, as a human, I'm full of cognitive dissonances ( :P), so I put 4/5 into my satisfaction level. Because in this case, my left hemisphere reasoning had won the battle against my emotional turndown reasons. :)
Neurons in the brain connect themselves as you use them. Each brain function is competing for limited resources and there is limited mapping space. So, what you have worked on the most gets developed. It's similar to physical exercise, the more you practice it in a certain way, the more you will get flexible in certain body parts resulting in more automaticity and the reduction of resources necessary to complete a specific move/task. Conversely, if you don't exercise, you will get overwhelmed and trapped with the same cycle of procrastinating exercise. Furthermore, unlearning is a lot harder than learning in a similar way because every repetition of that old habit made it stronger to change further.
Now, the brain's ability to change depends on learning through experience( outside stimulants, turning on some genes in catalyst environments...).
So, the concept that the certain brain parts were "hardwired" to perform specific tasks were overthrown by its capacity to deny the death of those brain cells( it can simply rewire to accomplish tasks ).
The book was so lucid and well consuming but I don't want to have dinner with Norman Doidge for a personal reason( emotional ok? :P ). He described all those experiments on those poor animals such as rats, monkeys, kitten ... in a zombie mode :(. There is another reason, his attitude seems like " If your brain doesn't work like a so-called functional brain then there is something wrong with your brain, so you have to get better with outside stimulants " ( Pardon me, If I misunderstood him ... and I'm open to reread him again :) )
The concept of "change" itself is a fascinating, open path to be promoted/encouraged but when the ethic propaganda "change is for good/bad/better/worse"
is promoted to control diversity forcefully then it goes really sickening.
But, as a human, I'm full of cognitive dissonances ( :P), so I put 4/5 into my satisfaction level. Because in this case, my left hemisphere reasoning had won the battle against my emotional turndown reasons. :)
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Brain that Changes Itself.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
July 9, 2018
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-4 of 4 (4 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Lilo
(new)
-
added it
Dec 20, 2018 01:30PM
I read both of Dr. Norman Doidge's Books last summer. Just haven't had time to review them yet. I consider the above book (Dr. Doidge's 2nd) a must-read for everyone who has any health issues. I also loved his 1st book, which is more scientific, and which I am glad I read AFTER (accidentally) reading the above book first.
reply
|
flag
P.S. You are so right about the experiments on those poor animals. I absolutely abhor research on animals and consider 95% of them quite useless anyway. (They are either stupid to start out with, or they are totally unnecessary repetitions of experiments.) If researchers want to find out certain things, they should experiment on themselves or on people who get paid for it. But this is the problem I have with just about all scientific books. They tell about the most cruel experiments in, as you so fittingly say, a zombie mode.
I used to be an activist against cruel animal research, and I would confront research doctors and argue with them. While some of these arguments got very aggressive on both sides, I came across one doctor who agreed with me, and it seemed to me that he considered changing his job. (I quit being an activist when, in 1987, my daughter [only child] died in a car accident. I no longer had the stamina for such fierce arguments.)
Hi Lilo, sorry to hear that you had to quit your activities against cruel animal research ...I once read a story about ".... but first" story of a scientist in Reddit comment section.
It was like that, a scientist has a hamster pet. And, he uses rodents in his laboratory experiments. A naughty boy was passing by his laboratory. The boy asked the scientist " Hey, why aren't using your own hamster?" ... The scientist said, " he is my pet, my family member" ... Then the boy said," But, still he is rodent and he is available too"...
Then the scientist replied " Of course he is a rodent, but he is my family first then rodent"
I guess, "what should be used in an experiment' usually depends on how the brain in power of the experiment evaluates the "first" in his judgment. :)
Farha wrote: "Hi Lilo, sorry to hear that you had to quit your activities against cruel animal research ...I once read a story about ".... but first" story of a scientist in Reddit comment section.
It was li..."
Having bonded with a human or animal makes a lot of difference in regard how we treat this human or animal. This actually doesn't make too much sense, but that's the way it is.
There are many studies, stories, reports, jokes, and anecdotes that prove this.
Btw, in one of my heated arguments with a researcher (in Germany), I told her that if it were still permitted, she'd perform the same cruel experiments on Jews. You should have seen her. She was beside herself. But I was right. Anyone who would do such terrible things to animals, would also do them to humans if they were of a race or ethnic group that was not protected by the law and pronounced inferior.
When it comes to eating meat, I am guilty myself. Why do I eat animals, when I love animals? Doesn't make much sense. And I feel bad about it. But I am such a greedy eater, probably even a food addict
