What's the difference between Slackers and Go Getters? The answer may have to do w/ brain chemistry.

[Griff]

I don't like when people post stuff like this because it gives slackers excuses for being slackers.

Even if this is true that "slackers" and "go-getters" have different brain chemistry (which I don't know for certain it is) that doesn't mean that we aren't the cause of said brain chemistry. The brain has the ability to change itself (neuro-plasticity) based on repeated thoughts and actions.

So if you let yourself consistently have weak thoughts, then your brain will literally change itself to accommodate for it. It will prune unused/lightly used neural pathways and strengthen the prevalent neural pathways. The problem with the slackers is that they have allowed themselves to have weak thoughts and ,over time, this changed their brains making it easier to fall into the weak thought patterns.



"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."
-Aristotle


"Watch your thoughts, they become words.
Watch your words, they become actions.
Watch your actions, they become habits.
Watch your habits, they become your character.
Watch your character, it becomes your destiny."
-Chinese proverb

 

[ChrisV]

Neuroplasticity is one thing, and it's touted in Self Help books as hard science, but dopamine is almost completely responsible for our reward system. People with low dopamine aren't driven by reward systems at all. There have been experiments where scientists gave rats drugs to block their dopamine receptors. They put them right next to food. The rats didn't even have the motivation to eat the food that was right next to them as they sat there and died.

The less dopamine the rats had, the less drive they had to seek rewards.

It's not about excuses, it's about finding the actual cause of things so that you can apply a solution. For example, you can influence dopamine through diet, which is one way to boost motivation where all the positive thinking in the world wouldn't do any good.

You have a kid with ADHD (a condition caused by low dopamine,) and he lacks the drive necessary to do well in school. You give him Adderal or Ritilin, TEN MINUTES later he will be functioning amazingly.

It's not about excuses. it's about finding answers that actually work.

The "excuses" mentality reminds me of this cartoon:

This is the old way of thinking. People used to think "oh you're depressed?! just cheer up" but we now know that depression is a actual, PHYSICAL problem and no matter how much cheering up and rays of sunshine and "think of butterflies," that person will never get better unless their brain chemistry issue is addressed. To call "Brain Chemistry" an excuse is like calling Diabetes an excuse.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[TheSilverSpoon]

Disappointing article. The big problem I had with it was how they chose to define the go-getters and slackers.

"Participants would be labeled as “go-getters” if they accepted harder challenges for more money, even when they were told they had a slim chance of winning, whereas less motivated participants would skip an attempt at a task if it cost them too much effort."

Rather lame definition of go-getters. Let's throw some numbers to it for example.
Challenge A: 10% chance of winning. $10 payout.
Challenge B: 50% change of winning. $3 payout.

Calculating the EV (which most true "go-getters" should have some innate sense of...)
Challenge A: +$1
Challenge B: +$1.50

The true go-getter should be choosing challenge B 100% of the time. I would, because that's the option that should net the highest lifetime yield. Yet that makes me a slacker in this study. The gamblers (slowlaners anyone?) would be the ones most likely to pick Challenge A, and be labeled as the go-getters here.

But gamblers are not go-getters. They do however, tend to have higher levels of dopamine than non-gamblers. Same rings true for addicts. Higher levels of dopamine than non-addicts.

The link between dopamine and impulsivity
Most dopamine medication has some warning about increasing impulsive behaviour. Levodopa (a leading dopamine agonist) for example
"may cause impulse-control disorders in some people. Impulse-control disorders include uncontrollable or problem gambling, sexual behavior, and shopping. Binge eating is another example."
http://www.webmd.com/parkinsons-disease/levodopa-medications-for-parkinsons-disease

This research didn't show or prove anything with regards to slackers and go-getters and the effect that dopamine may play on them. If anything, they have the results completely backwards.

Instead of
More dopamine -> harder challenges w/ lower outcomes of success -> being a 'go-getter'
Less dopamine -> easier challenges w/ higher outcomes of success -> being a 'slacker'

It should be
Less dopamine -> less impulsivity -> more rational thoughts -> better chance of 'go-getting'
More dopamine -> more impulsive -> more shiny object / binge watching / bong rips -> more slacking

PS if you don't know what EV is drop everything you are doing and go read this.
http://foreverjobless.com/ev-millionaires-math/

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[The-J]

If you're here, this study doesn't apply to you. You're motivated enough to be here, which means your brain is capable of generating enough dopamine for you to get off your a$$.

Get back to work.

 

[ChrisV]

http://www.medicaldaily.com/brains-...ome-are-slackers-and-others-go-getters-240313

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

And dopamine isn't regulated by your thoughts. It's synthesized by an amino acid called L-Tyrosine which converts to L-DOPA and finally Dopamine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ChrisV]

Completely agree, but pthe idea of doctors getting kickbacks from the drugs they prescribed is a myth. It's completely illegal for doctors to receive payments for what they prescribe.

My only problem with the neural plasticity idea is that self-help authors take that one little tiny bit of science that they know and abuse the shit out of it and try to use it as evidence that positive thinking is all you need to succeed. Try positive thinking when you're clinically depressed and your serotonin levels are almost 0… You will never be able to do it no matter what Rhonda Byrne said about neural plasticity. Your brain is a physical machine and all the laws of physics apply to it

Self-helpism is not science and it actually agrivates me when they blaspheme the name of science with their pseudoscience.

To be frank… They honestly just make shit up with no regard to actual facts and actual research.

One other example is serotonin. Serotonin is derived from the amino acid tryptophan. Tryptophan is a protein. There have been studies where they fed people meals with every amino acid except tryptophan fora
Day or so. Every single person in the study developed depression. 100%. Just by depriving them of tryptophan, which lowers serotonin levels in the brain.

No amount of positive thinking will ever fix that.

 

[ChrisV]

If thats true, someone should make a pill that makes your dopamine go to the striatum and ventromedial prefrontal cortex and turn you into a "go getter" ...action taker instead of action faker.

They do. Adrenal and Ritalin are designed to do that.

But that's a really bad idea if you don't actually have ADHD because your body because your body become accustomed to them and you wind up with way LESS motivation than you started with. Bad news.

If you really wanna boost dopamine in a natural way, look into L-Tyrosine.

http://nootriment.com/l-tyrosine-uses/

http://www.limitlessmindset.com/nootropic-ingredients/323-l-tyrosine.html

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kay Rockley]

I think it very much has to do with your initial driving factors. Pull Motivations always work a lot more than Push Motivation. You can learn more about what I mean here

 

[CommonCents]

Brain and hormone science will be transformational. If you have a physiological problem, there is no amount of will power that will help. Cheaper more available and accurate diagnosis will make a big positive impact, IMHO. For most people without some major specific problems, eating better, being hydrated and working out makes big improvements.

interesting presentation, he does a series on PBS as well, probably online somewhere.
http://danielamenmd.amenclinics.com...most-important-lesson-from-83000-brain-scans/

 

[Gsuz]

I think it very much has to do with your initial driving factors. Pull Motivations always work a lot more than Push Motivation. You can learn more about what I mean here

You would get a better response if you actually took the time to explain those concepts within your posts or a thread and then drop a link at the end, in case someone wants a more detailed read.

Looking at the analytics of your bitly link: https://bitly.com/1F1ELD0+ we can see 24 totally worthless clicks in a spawn of 2 months. I'd increase my efforts and create content that people actually want to read and share. Good luck

 

[rogue synthetic]

Chris I may have given you the wrong impression here.

I'm not trying to have an argument with you.

I don't mean to be rude, but that kind of argument wouldn't be too far off arguing with my three year old daughter about which letter comes first in the alphabet. She's not totally clueless, but she's easily blinded by what she sees, and beacuse of that she has little grasp of the much larger space of ignorance.

I've tried to make the point with a scalpel but I guess I need to use the hammer: I'm a bit more educated on this topic than you seem to realize.

Your whole style of carrying on here reminds me of a reasonably bright undergraduate student who is enthusiastic about the topic. You don't seem to really understand the debate or what's involved in it. You think that just linking to Youtube videos or articles where some expert says something is a devastating argument.

I know this is hard to see from the outside, but scientists and academics don't look at each other like supermen. It's pretty common even for people within a single field of study to completely savage "rock stars". It's also very common for very bright people specializing in one particular area to say incredibly dumb things about things outside their areas of expertise.

I'm well aware of who Sapolsky is since I didn't learn about these subjects by Youtube videos and popular journalism. He's a very bright and accomplished researcher.

He's not God or even a god. Neuroscientists specialize in neuroscience. On topics that aren't neuroscience, they can be just as confused as anyone else. Saying "Sapolsky says!" is about as much of a winning move as taking my advice on who's going to win the Superbowl.

Whatever your background here, this makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Like you're more worried about proving yourself and scoring points than being genuinely interested in the issues.

There's nothing wrong with being a beginner. Everybody starts somewhre. You've got a lot of enthusiasm, clearly. Great! Keep reading and learning. But don't mistake your interest and the current 'neuro-mania' in pop-culture for genuine depth of understanding. That takes a lot of time and patience.

Most auto-didacts are better at convincing themselves they have it than actually getting there.

That's assuming you're not here to Guru your way to the top with your Special Report That Reveals Top 27 Amazing Neuro-Secrets That Will Take Your Business Game to the Top in 30 Days or Less (Guaranteed!) In which case, I wish you luck.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Ah there it is.

Because no PhD or formal certification, and no complicated language, you don't believe anyone will get any use out of surface-level musings. (Yes it is just skimming the surface, and I'm not sure how many are confused about that. But the way I'm reading it, you seem to be straw manning the issue.)

Considering so many famous scientists did not have institutional schooling, and this forum focuses a significant amount on education and understanding, outside of college, the requirement for a degree is an odd nitpick. (What requirements have you attributed to acquiring that "Science badge?")

I know, right?. And quote frankly I’m getting a little bit tired of this attitude around here. That other little twit practically derailed my entire thread with his nonsense. This is a forum that’s literally predicated on the notion that you don’t need college to get shit done. The entire forum was built around that ideology. But you have a bunch of sidewalkers who cling to the ideology that college is the only legitimate source of knowledge. Yo it’s 2018. Colleges are done. MOOCs are very quickly replacing them, and honestly I’m not sure why that didn’t happen sooner. University is an antiquated technology. I went to college. Nobody wants to drive 40 minutes to go to sit in a hot sweaty classroom with 50 other kids listening to some no-name Professor drivel on four hours and when there are much better alternatives. Why in god’s name would you do that when you can literally take a MOOC from an Ivy League professor while sitting in your underwear in your kitchen. You can email the professor. You can rewind. If you miss something you can go to that exact lesson. If you’re sick, you just do the class later. It’s on your schedule. The quality of the education is significantly better, and people still want to talk about classroom education.

College is mostly for people who want to learn to copy the solutions other people have come up with. Which is fine, but it’s not so much for people who want to innovate new solutions. It’d for those who want yo follow others’ path rather than forge a new one.

There’s data showing that Valedictorians are some of the least likely to ever become millionaires.

Why valedictorians rarely become rich and famous — and the average millionaire's college GPA was 2.9

Why? They’re good at following directions. Not innovating new solutions.

Bill Gates dropped out of college. Steve Jobs dropped out of college. Mark Zuckerburg.

You don’t become rich by following the path of others. Now that being said, learning is extremely important. As noted below

Actionable advice can come from understanding.

Exactly. If you want to learn how to fix cars, you learn every aspect of how they operate. It’s literally the only way because otherwise you have to ask those who do know.

Among computer people there are three levels of hackers. Called “script kiddy,” “hackers” and “l33t hacker.” “Script kiddies” download other people’s scripts and run them. Like jailbreaking your iPhone. It’s mainly plug and play. Hackers know a bit about computers but are limited by their knowledge. Now the “l33t hackers”? Oh man. They know the ins and outs of computers, how the software works, how the hardware works. So they can find loopholes and exploits to innovate new solutions. They’re the ones who WRITE the program you use to jailbreak your iPhone. The actionable advice comes from knowing the ins and outs.

This thread is actually very personal for me because me? I’m naturally in the ‘slacker’ category. But by biohacking my dopamine levels I’ve been able to accomplish ridiculous amounts of shit. I’ve boosted my income, my energy, my productivity. So again, if people doesn’t want to learn, we’ll see them on the next lap, when we pass them 2x over. Again, like MJ says ‘some people would rather be right than to be rich.” Almost all of these silicone valley billionaires do shit like this (biohacking.) Why? They’ve realize that the key to success is to change your biology. Anyone who wants to hold on to the old way is gonna get left in the dust.

 

[ApparentHorizon]

Can someone (or @ApparentHorizon directly) elaborate on this? Thank you

Processed grains are basically poison. They prevent your body from absorbing important minerals. Including iron, zinc, magnesium, calcium, and a few others.

(I'm being dramatic. they won't kill you....too quickly)

If you need the carbs, eat whole grain like steel cut oats.

Iron helps your cells carry oxygen around your body. Including your brain!

The majority of people in the world have an iron deficiency and they don't even know it.

 

[ChrisJTurner]

Ive been both, I must be a hybrid!

*enters go-getter mode*

 

[craig1928]

we've got a linker

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Brentnal]

I don't like this, this looks like an excuse a slacker would use.

 

[ChrisV]

Can you point me to them or relist please?

Exercise - Not only does it boost DA, but in addition exercise increases the number of receptors in the brain which actually has very very very pronounced effects.. it essentially raises DA neurotransmission exponentially [1] [2] [3]
setting small goals (breaking your big goals into chunks)
eat protein (foods high in phenylalanine/tyrosine)
reduce saturated fat [1] (but saturated fat is NOT as evil as the media make it out to be so wouldn’t go crazy)

One study found that rats that consumed 50% of their calories from saturated fat had reduced dopamine signaling in the reward areas of their brain, compared to animals receiving the same amount of calories from unsaturated fat
​

Probiotics [1] [2]
Velvet Beans [1] Parkinsons is caused by dopamine dysfunction
8 hours sleep
Listen to music [1] [2] [3]
Meditation [1] (This study found a SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT increase in dopamine release after meditation!
Plenty of sunlight! [1] [2]
Reduce sugar (sugar causes a dopamine spike, but down regulates receptors.. causing really bad long-term effects)
Supplements: L-Tyrosine, L-Phenylalinine, L-theanine, Phosphatidylserine, Curcumin, Ginkgo Biloba, Mucuna Pruriens, More: 54 Supplements & Drugs/Agonists to Increase Dopamine - Selfhacked (Selfhacked is a great resource for stuff like this

Sorry I didn’t cite everything but it’s easily verifiable. Like if you type in “Sleep and dopamine” or “small goals dopamine" into Google the studies should pop right up.

 

[Ninjakid]

not just dopamine

SEROTONIN!!!!!

Serotonin makes you happy, gives you self-worth, makes you aware, gives you an appetite, and makes you want to succeed!

I was born with Tourettes, so I have an overabundance of dopamine, but low serotonin BY DEFAULT!

And I say by default because I overcome it constantly. I REFUSE to let it define me. My body and mind are just a vessel of a higher power, and it must be under my control!!

Most of my life, I was shy and apprehensive. I wasn't motivated because I would always seek instant gratification. Hence the overactive dopamine.

When I started to train myself to do hard shit, my usual depressive mood disappeared. I'm a fireball of drive at times. Serotonin controls the amount of dopamine present, so with more of it, I get relief from symptoms.

It's still a challenge to this day, but I keep at it. I'm always challenging myself and I refuse to feel sorry for myself.

If I can do it, so can you. Anyone can become a go-getter if they will it.

Sacrifice who you are today for who you can be tomorrow

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Yikes, this thread started 3 years ago.

Anyhow, upgrading to NOTABLE due to all the effort, charts, links, and references posted. It's a tangled web of information, if anyone wants to sort it out, it could be helpful. For instance, the Locus of Control concept is significant to understand for success.

 

[ApparentHorizon]

I didn't read a single post in this thread but wanted to chime in...

I noticed when I change my food intake to eating more whole non-processed foods, less sugar, and a little more caffeine( black, no sugar ), and exercise everyday, I become a go getter.

Get rid of breads and pastas too if you eat them.

Then add in a bowl, one bigger than your head, of leafy greens like spinach for the iron. Do this the night before, for dinner. No later than 10PM. You'll wake up the next morning like coffee is a primitive tool. If you've ever wondered why people get up at 5 in the morning, you'll find it's not all about willpower and alarm clocks.

 

[cautiouscapy]

this looks like an excuse a slacker would use

Not necessarily...I sometimes have "slacker" periods, having this information tells me there's a possible fixable REASON for it, makes me look into how to boost my levels of L-tyrosine, what else can I do?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Ahhh, I have Dr. Amen's book - Change Your Brain, Change your Life. In it he tells a great story about a man who was always fun loving, caring, gentle until he suffered a head injury. All of a sudden he became violent, aggressive and would hurt his friends and family. It really makes you question the whole fabric of morality and even free will. How much free will do humans actually have?

Oh wow, he covers the case study of Andrew, the violent kid with the Cyst at 12:40.

Everyone needs to watch that video.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[The Abundant Man]

ChrisV, this is a great book that I think you'd be interested in

 

[ChrisV]

I don't think I'm understanding how dopamine works.

I thought it was, you do X (accomplish a goal) and get rewarded with dopamine.

From the above, giving someone dopamine, you increase their motivation...to go out and do stuff?

Or is there a middle ground where both are right?

We used to thing dopamine was the pleasure chemical, now we know it’s a little more nuanced than that. Dopamine actually comes more before the reward, and the reward chemical is either Serotonin, GABA, Endorphin (opioids,) AND/OR DA (Dopamine) (in addition to)

They usually break it down into “wanting” and “liking”



https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/experim...g-2013/handouts/MITES_S10S13_addictionwk4.pdf

Incentive salience, we suggest, is a distinct component of motivation and reward. In other words, dopamine systems are necessary for 'wanting' incentives, but not for 'liking' them or for learning new 'likes' and 'dislikes’.​

Dopamine is mostly the ‘wanting’ chemical. When we ‘want’ something our body prepares us for action. Dopamine is very energetic. It makes us energized and motivated

For example a lion sees a gazelle. Dopamine squirt as soon as he sees it. That causes glucose to be released into the blood preparing him for action... but once he GETS the gazelle, he feels calm. Opioids or GABA.

 

[ApparentHorizon]

Chris I may have given you the wrong impression here.

I'm not trying to have an argument with you.

I don't mean to be rude, but that kind of argument wouldn't be too far off arguing with my three year old daughter about which letter comes first in the alphabet. She's not totally clueless, but she's easily blinded by what she sees, and beacuse of that she has little grasp of the much larger space of ignorance.

I've tried to make the point with a scalpel but I guess I need to use the hammer: I'm a bit more educated on this topic than you seem to realize.

Your whole style of carrying on here reminds me of a reasonably bright undergraduate student who is enthusiastic about the topic. You don't seem to really understand the debate or what's involved in it. You think that just linking to Youtube videos or articles where some expert says something is a devastating argument.

I know this is hard to see from the outside, but scientists and academics don't look at each other like supermen. It's pretty common even for people within a single field of study to completely savage "rock stars". It's also very common for very bright people specializing in one particular area to say incredibly dumb things about things outside their areas of expertise.

I'm well aware of who Sapolsky is since I didn't learn about these subjects by Youtube videos and popular journalism. He's a very bright and accomplished researcher.

He's not God or even a god. Neuroscientists specialize in neuroscience. On topics that aren't neuroscience, they can be just as confused as anyone else. Saying "Sapolsky says!" is about as much of a winning move as taking my advice on who's going to win the Superbowl.

Whatever your background here, this makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Like you're more worried about proving yourself and scoring points than being genuinely interested in the issues.

There's nothing wrong with being a beginner. Everybody starts somewhre. You've got a lot of enthusiasm, clearly. Great! Keep reading and learning. But don't mistake your interest and the current 'neuro-mania' in pop-culture for genuine depth of understanding. That takes a lot of time and patience.

Most auto-didacts are better at convincing themselves they have it than actually getting there.

That's assuming you're not here to Guru your way to the top with your Special Report That Reveals Top 27 Amazing Neuro-Secrets That Will Take Your Business Game to the Top in 30 Days or Less (Guaranteed!) In which case, I wish you luck.

I'd buy it. (ok maybe not, but only b/c its a curiosity, and not my main pursuit. Maybe an audiobook I would.)

The way he presents the info, however dumbed down, makes it accessible to the rest of us. I appreciate what he's sharing, and helped provide a few keywords I could go down the rabbit hole that affected my life directly.

Just because not all of it is 100% accurate, doesn't mean it's not helpful to someone. In reality a lot of science is debatable, especially with the uptick in falsified publishing lately. (Don't get me started on China)

And that's the beauty of it in the first place. Someone states a hypothesis. Performs an experiment, and welcomes everyone else to try to falsify it.

Just saying the studies and information are wrong, b/c they're in popsci or youtube videos, isn't constructive imo. It might be helpful to the rest of us to say why it's wrong and propose alternative viewpoints, than just shutting down the discussion.

Maybe I'm coming from a naive place, but just my 2c.

 

[ChrisV]

HO LEE. FKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

View attachment 21139

This explains so much



Why people like the process and not the end goal.

It explains, why I sometimes get depressed (using that term loosely) after achieving some goals. Hence, why it's important to set multiple, short, med, and long term ones. Or why other people say, set ridiculously high targets.

It's all so you would avoid that "crash" afterwards. Kind of like some people get afternoon withdrawal, but with their vision of themselves.

See also, hedonism....when pleasure is achieved, happiness stagnates.

This may also explain why people sabotage themselves.

Well this chart leaves out the other side of the coin..

 

[ChrisV]

I'd buy it. (ok maybe not, but only b/c its a curiosity, and not my main pursuit. Maybe an audiobook I would.)

The way he presents the info, however dumbed down, makes it accessible to the rest of us. I appreciate what he's sharing, and helped provide a few keywords I could go down the rabbit hole that affected my life directly.

Just because not all of it is 100% accurate, doesn't mean it's not helpful to someone. In reality a lot of science is debatable, especially with the uptick in falsified publishing lately. (Don't get me started on China)

And that's the beauty of it in the first place. Someone states a hypothesis. Performs an experiment, and welcomes everyone else to try to falsify it.

Just saying the studies and information are wrong, b/c they're in popsci or youtube videos, isn't constructive imo. It might be helpful to the rest of us to say why it's wrong and propose alternative viewpoints, than just shutting down the discussion.

Maybe I'm coming from a naive place, but just my 2c.

Sapolsky isn’t even Pop Science. This guy was darting monkeys to measure their neurochemistry since before half of us were born. He’s a serious and reputable researcher and one of the leading biologists in the world. And rogue knows this.

 

[ApparentHorizon]

these aren't topics that you can expect to be digested into bite-sized chunks AND be useful AND still get you the approval badge of Science™. Pick any 2.

Ah there it is.

Because no PhD or formal certification, and no complicated language, you don't believe anyone will get any use out of surface-level musings. (Yes it is just skimming the surface, and I'm not sure how many are confused about that. But the way I'm reading it, you seem to be straw manning the issue.)

Considering so many famous scientists did not have institutional schooling, and this forum focuses a significant amount on education and understanding, outside of college, the requirement for a degree is an odd nitpick. (What requirements have you attributed to acquiring that "Science badge?")

If you're expecting real actionable advice... well, I think your time is best spent on other things.

If that's where you think your time or money is best spent, I'm not here to argue with you. But I'd consider my sources, and keep in mind that simplicity is not always the best virtue even if it's the rule of the game on the internet. Some problems are just hard, no matter how much you want the easy way.

Again, I think you're straw manning. Actionable advice can come from understanding. Not the understanding you get from studying 12 hours a day for 4 years, but just knowing keywords to research on your own.

I don't know much about food, but we can all accept salads are healthy, and excessive processed foods can be damaging. You can spend years researching why and how fat messes you up, and clogs your arteries, and you need to balance your HDL and LDL for a healthy life, I'd get nothing else done.

I don't know much about genetics, but found out one side of my family is predisposed to alcoholism. So I stopped drinking altogether when I saw signs of me going down that road. I don't need to know which ACGT sequence is directly responsible for these effects, or if it's even genetic.

I don't know much about neuroscience, but I may even have ADD. If I do, I've managed decently well without any form of medication without it. My friend who does have a PhD and has been a practicing doctor for the past 12 years, couldn't really point to any strong indicator of the fact. But recommended I try a simple natural solution before even considering pills. (There's a strong sense of my ego that doesn't want to admit to it, but it is what it is.)

3. Nothing is going to be settled or proven or decided on an internet thread. It is going to degenerate into ego and name calling. Not if, when. It's already heading that way right now. I'm only here right now because I still think there's a slightly better than average chance that the carrot win.

So why throw the first stone?

So what exactly would you like to know?

I've stated some of my questions above. Feel free to interpret them as you see fit, and take us to a place where we wouldn't have considered.

 

[rogue synthetic]

Ah there it is.

Because no PhD or formal certification, and no complicated language, you don't believe anyone will get any use out of surface-level musings. (Yes it is just skimming the surface, and I'm not sure how many are confused about that. But the way I'm reading it, you seem to be straw manning the issue.)

Considering so many famous scientists did not have institutional schooling, and this forum focuses a significant amount on education and understanding, outside of college, the requirement for a degree is an odd nitpick. (What requirements have you attributed to acquiring that "Science badge?")

Let's think about this for a minute.

Don't get mad, stop and breathe. I'm serious. I'm not attacking you here.

Why do you immediately assume I am?

Do you think this kind of response is contributing anything to the positive environment you accused me of not creating? Did you think this through at all or did you just automatically assume I was out to get you and go on the defensive?

Do you think this kind of response is going to motivate me to respond to you positively?

These questions are not insults! If you think these are insults, then there is no point in having this discussion at all. I could literally sit here and call you names for the next 20 posts and it would be the same outcome as any informative posts.

Not all disagreements are going to happen the way you want them, on your terms, agreeing with your ideas. If that's troubling to you, I'm genuinely sorry, but we have nothing else to say to each other.

I'm asking these questions hoping to get you to stop and think about what is going on and why you are reading me as attacking you.

Step back from the thread, get out of your head, and look at it without the attack.

All I said was that there is little reason in fixating on the micro issues in neuroscience if you want to understand behavior. That fixating on them creates an illusion of expertise that is probably missing.

Why the emotional investment?

If you think the Fastlane forum is better than reddit-tier sniping and trotting out the ol' web page of logical fallacies -- and it absolutely is better than that! -- then why even bring it there?

This attitude is EXACTLY the problem! So fast to find fault instead of LISTENING. And you expect to be taken seriously?

When it turns into that I've got zero reason to participate. My ego isn't bruised, but my time and energy has much better uses.

Be what you want to see, friend.

But.

That goes for me too.

If I came off as condescending or rude, I apologize.

But I'm also making it clear now that this will be the last post if you or anyone else insists on making this a reddit-snarkfest. I have better things to do than be lectured by people who insist on taking everything personally.

Read on, I've got something positive to contribute, promise!

---

As I thought about it I realized there is a good point in some of what you said about the value of the discussion (we can set aside that bit about amateur neuroscientists... if you wouldn't let the well-read janitor do your brain surgery, it's probably a good idea to drop that thought...

Maybe there's an opportunity here I didn't think all the way through.

WARNING: This is very long

If you want to know why I think neuro-fantasizing is a case of majoring in the minors, here's a very good and accessible article that introduces some of the difficulties.

The Limits of Neuro-Talk

I'm going to emphasize again that the problem is not with any particular fact. The facts are fine. The interpretations are a whole different matter.

This is going to get into some of the brass tacks of it, but you asked!

You can make a useful analogy with driving a car.

You learned what driving a car meant when you were a kid, watching dad or mom drive. Seeing other cars move around.

You got a little older and you learned what cars and traffic and road rules were, how internal combustion engines work, what a traffic light was, all kinds of facts about cars, how cars work, what people do with them.

Driving a car is something people do. It's something that happens in certain conditions, in certain situations, with lots of other things also going on.

You learned to drive a car by getting behind the wheel.

You learned to fix cars (if you did) by watching your dad, or hanging out with the gear-heads, or becoming a mechanic yourself.

Pay close attention to the difference between the last two lines.

You learned to drive by driving. You learn how the car works by fixing it or maybe designing it if you're more the engineering type.

One way to put it: You don't become a better driver by studying the fuel injectors.

On the other hand if you know what fuel injectors are and what they do, you might be able to fix a problem that's stopping you from driving.

Driving is just the analogy. Substitute in whatever mind-word you'd like: pain, excitement, fear, desire, sensation, thought.

Two problems turn up here. One of them is mostly academic and not too relevant. The other problem is a little more connected to the kinds of questions you mention.

The first thing, just to get it out of the way, is what these words mean. No, I don't mean pointless arguing about definitions. I mean, when I say "red", and you read the word and something comes into your mind, what makes it possible that you understood what red means? This is a big area of debate which I'm not even going to try and tackle here, but one reasonably popular view is that mental words like "pain" or "fear" or "desire" or "thought" aren't words that pick out things.

They're more like skills. You learn how to use them, and when you learn to use them, you're learning a collection of facts, sure... you know which things are painful, what different kinds of pain feel like, I'm sure we could go on for awhile... but they're all the same thing: pain.

This is why the analogy with the word "driving" is helpful. Nobody would confuse driving a car with having a lot of knowledge about how internal combustion engines work.

This raises some pretty serious (to understate the point) issues in neuroscience in so far as what is being explained when some fact is discovered in an fMRI experiment or computational modeling of a neurological process, or whatever.

If you don't get this right, then it can be very much like saying, "oh, driving? That's just what happens when..." and then some nerd spends the next three hours telling you how the engine cranks.

Now the big question mark here is whether the sciences can or should be the only way we say what a mental word means. And most people aren't too happy with this kind of thing: "Oh, pain? No, that's really just..." and you fill out some three-hour explanation of a functional module in the frontal cortex.

Well, first of all, "pain" is nothing that a neuroscientist ever has or ever will discover in the brain. (Have you ever looked at a brain? Very messy, mostly fatty tissue and blood. No pain, though!) That takes a theory to translate the neurological stuff into the psychological words and vice-versa.

Needless to say, this is not something we can just say, "oh, yeah, science figures this out". There's a lot of assumptions built into that, and no science can or does decide the problem. (This also gets into some issues about what explanations are, and even what it means to talk about causality... well outside the scope of this thread which is already far too large.)

Even neuroscientists study stuff like "vision" by taking ordinary eyesight as the thing to be explained... and you don't get that in an MRI. You get it by talking to people, and getting people to tell you what's going on. In short, if you don't get this right you end up doing a real, not just internet yelling, fallacy called begging the question. The explanations end up assuming the truth of what they cliam to prove.

But that's mostly technical stuff, and you're interested in the practical implications.

The second thing then has to do with how the actual knowledge carries out of the sciences into useful/actionable/practical wisdom.

This gets messy because there's not a clear line between the ordinary regular-Joe usage of mental or psychological words and then the real technical usage.

The sciences of mind need words like "warm" or "white" or "dizzy" to have something to explain... and at the same time, scientific findings can update our understanding of what the words mean.

Driving doesn't mean engineering diagrams of a car or models of how fuel injectors work.... but you understand what driving is a little bit better if you know this.

So there's a pendulum swinging back and forth between regular "intuitive" knowledge and technical scientific knowledge.

Now you'd think this would be easier. We discover ABC and now we know XYZ, right?

Let's take your examples from above:

I don't know much about genetics, but found out one side of my family is predisposed to alcoholism. So I stopped drinking altogether when I saw signs of me going down that road. I don't need to know which ACGT sequence is directly responsible for these effects, or if it's even genetic.

I don't know much about neuroscience, but I may even have ADD. If I do, I've managed decently well without any form of medication without it. My friend who does have a PhD and has been a practicing doctor for the past 12 years, couldn't really point to any strong indicator of the fact. But recommended I try a simple natural solution before even considering pills. (There's a strong sense of my ego that doesn't want to admit to it, but it is what it is.)

Awesome. (Seriously, personal congratulations on improving.)

But notice what you've said here: you're basically agreeing with me!

You could figure out a genetic tendency... but it isn't adding to anything you didn't already know. Confirming, giving you a different angle of attack, sure... but you weren't surprised.

This is the issue I'm getting at.

And this is where it gets worrying, because of stuff like this:

The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations

It's easy to take the shiny new sheen on the popular hotness as authoritative... but never forget we live in a media-created world. MJ calls this a "hyperreality" in his books, and it's as good a word as any.

Like it or not, there's an air of prestige that attaches to "neuro-" anything, and that makes things look more believable than they are.

The thing is, most of the really cutting-edge interesting work in neuroscience is about as far removed from the cognitive/psychological stuff as you could believe... and where it does try to tackle these questions, it's often confused, or opens out into 100 new questions in 50 new directions... and then a journalist gets hold of it and forget it.

This is all very easily highjacked by outright charlatans and well-meaning people. As most things are.

My whole point was that you don't need any of this stuff for the things you're interested in. Sure, in some cases it can be nice to know, and it can help you narrow down the options... but if you're tinkering with the transmission you're not really seeing how the car goes, you know? This may change in the future as the sciences mature, of course... I'm just talking about how things are right now.

I'm not joking when I say you'll learn more about human behavior from writers or poets, or a good salesman or copywriter for that matter, than you will from neuroscientists right now. There's just no straight line from the micro "neuro" to the macro "personal" level, and anybody who thinks otherwise -- I won't say they're wrong, but a) they're making a shaky bet and b) they are very unlikely to discover anything truly interesting or ingenious that you wouldn't discover from studying actual behavior.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.