Symphony of Science
Two posts in one day. I know, I spoil you.
Really, I just wanted to share with you something that I feel is a beautiful homage, well put-together, and strangely enchanting. It is essentially a mash-up of documentary and lecture clips, auto-tuned to produce a flowing melody, on an electronic backing track, but the end result is, frankly, brilliant. Includes some of my true heroes, some more well-known faces of science, and also Bill Nye (the Science Guy) who taught me science via my telly when I was only 6 years old. Squee.
Enjoy.
EDIT: If you enjoy this, you can watch Jill Bolte Taylor’s moving, inspiring TED talk (sampled here) in full here
[Robert Winston]
It’s amazing to consider that I’m holding in my hands
The place where someone once felt, thought, and loved
For centuries, scientists have been battling to understand
What this unappealing object is all about
[Vilayanur Ramachandran]
Here is this mass of jelly
You can hold in the palm of your hands
And it can contemplate the vastness of interstellar space
[Carl Sagan]
The brain has evolved from the inside out
Its structure reflects all the stages through which it has passed
[Jill Bolte Taylor]
Information in the form of energy
Streams in simultaneously
Through all of our sensory systems
And then it explodes into this enormous collage
Of what this present moment looks like
What it feels like
And what it sounds like
And then it explodes into this enormous collage
And in this moment we are perfect
We are whole and we are beautiful
[Robert Winston]
It appears rather gruesome
Wrinkled like a walnut, and with the consistency of mushroom
[Carl Sagan]
What we know is encoded in cells called neurons
And there are something like a hundred trillion neural connections
This intricate and marvelous network of neurons has been called
An enchanted loom
The neurons store sounds too, and snatches of music
Whole orchestras play inside our heads
20 million volumes worth of information
Is inside the heads of every one of us
The brain is a very big place
In a very small space
No longer at the mercy of the reptile brain
We can change ourselves
Think of the possibilities
[Bill Nye]
Think of your brain as a newspaper
Think of all the information it can store
But it doesn’t take up too much room
Because it’s folded
[Oliver Sacks]
We see with the eyes
But we see with the brain as well
And seeing with the brain
Is often called imagination
[Various]
[Robert Winston]
It is the most mysterious part of the human body
And yet it dominates the way we live our adult lives
It is the brain
Letters to the Editor: Science vs. Magic
I am a very proud daughter.
My dad got his letter to the Times printed. In full. In bold. With a photo of a rainbow.
OK, I’ll explain that.
On June 4th, there was an article printed in the Times Opinion pages, by one Raymond Tallis, accusing scientists of suffering from “Darwinitis” and “Neuromania” – seeing our obsession with scientific explanations for the human condition as some kind of disease. Tallis argues that humans are simply not explainable by science, evolution, brain scans and so forth.
Well, my dad responded by saying… Oh hell, read it for yourself; he puts it so well (Dr Alex Christie; click to see the bigger picture)
The little bit of paper in the right hand corner is a response to my dad, printed a day later. So glad the Rev Graham Hellier has such a long, considered response. He entirely misses the point, and just as an aside? Referring to nature as a “she” is a mere colloquialism. Dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Any thoughts?
Do I know you?
Dissertation hell. OK, I say hell – it’s not that terrible. I could probably have made it a bit easier on myself by starting work in earnest a bit earlier in the year, but what’s done is done and I might as well just have a long hard slog now.
If you’ve read previous blog posts, then you will be aware that I’m writing my dissertation about a rare brain disorder called prosopagnosia – prosopagnosia is an inability to recognise people’s faces. I’ve been designing a battery of tests to test the extent of my patient’s deficits, including some face recognition tests, but also some voice and semantics tests, to see if her recognition problems run further than faces.
Designing the famous faces tests were fairly straight forward – google image search is a wonderful thing, and I am a dab-hand with photoshop (for cutting out the oval of the face – not for warping anything!). The only thing I struggled with there was actually just thinking up the names of enough famous people. I am useless with names.
Image from KatyB Photography
The semantics test was a little harder, although almost done – for that, the same problem applies, in that I’ve had to think up the names of 48 of each politicians, musicians, actors and sports personalities.
Finally, voice recognition. This is proving a real pain in the neck. Firstly, audio manipulation is not my “bag” – if anyone knows of a simple way to cut out a snippet of a sound clip, please let me know.
The second problem with finding suitable sound clips is the content of those clips – if I wanted the participant to identify a clip of Arnold Schwarzenegger speaking, I would want them to identify him by his VOICE, not by what he’s saying – it might well be that they know his films well, and could recognise the quote “I’ll be back”, but not necessarily by his own unique voice. So I have to be careful of the content of the clip – if I have a clip of Gordon Brown talking about the financial crisis, the participant might deduce “politics – Scottish male speaker – must be Brown”. That’s not the skill I’m looking to identify.
But on the bright side, once my tests are designed, the fun begins (ha ha). I can start running tests – I have one case study to test, and then I need preferably 10 age-matched female controls. In case you’re keen to help me with my research, you need to be between 37-47, female, white British and able to meet me in London for testing some time over the next couple of weeks. No time wasters 
Then the write-up begins, then I submit the draft for marking, then the re-write, then (hopefully!!) I graduate and then…? Then, ladies and gentleman, I likely have a nervous breakdown. Ha ha.
I’ll keep you posted.
Further Reading:
Violent Video Games
As part of my assessment for my MSc, I have been doing a joint poster project with my friend Rebecca surrounding the topic of violent video games. Are violent video games really causing our kids to be more aggressive? I say “our” kids – I don’t have kids. But I WAS a kid. And I played violent video games. So did my brothers. I wouldn’t consider us to be particularly aggressive. Maybe we were boisterous kids, but that was arguably before the games, and plenty of people have boisterous kids.
Image from GeekWithLaptop.com
Anecdotal evidence, you say? Maybe. But some facts and figures from the US of A -
“According to the FBI in 2009,The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. The FBI statistics show that video game sales have been on the rise, while all juvenile violent crimes have fallen in the same amount of time.”
From debate.org
OK, but that’s just someone saying a thing on a debating website, I hear you cry. I won’t lie: I’ve made no effort to track down that report from the FBI. It could be made up. This is the internet, afterall. EDIT: Oh look, found it.
You might have read some news articles talking about a correlation between violent video gameplay and subsequent aggressive behaviour in children. Bollocks to that, is what I say. Correlation, as any good scientist knows, does not equate to causation. It might be that children that already have an aggressive disposition are more likely to be drawn to play violent games in the first place. They see violent games as a way of directing their aggression, which surely is no bad thing. We don’t see a correlation between calm kids and violent video gamplay, maybe because calm kids don’t get attracted to play violent video games (they’d much rather play bonkers colourful games like Katarmari Forever or Hamster Ball.)
And what about extraneous variables? Studies that show these correlations tend to ignore the children’s family history, or trait violence. Who knows, these kids might come from abusive homes, and violence is all they know. Oh, and we usually only see the short term effects of violent influences – what about a longitudinal study, please? Do these same kids grow up into violent adults? Or is that a rare thing? Are the majority of violent video game players (i.e. MOST WESTERN TEENAGERS) likely to populate the globe with murderers? I think not. They will probably be accountants, or contestants on Britain’s Got Talent, or some other, (arguably) normal lifetime pursuit.
Perhaps some “more research is needed” – I hate to fall back on that old line, but it’s true. Video games are here to stay, so rather than bitch and moan about the possible influence of young children, and their subsequent development into aggressive teens (view not supported by evidence), maybe it’s high time we started looking into the other factors influencing aggression in young people. Maybe there’s deep-rooted issues. Maybe aggressive children need early-intervention programmes. Maybe we need to teach the negativity of violence to young people. What about anger management strategies for children? Don’t scoff – the naughty step works wonders for Supernanny.
Interested in reading more? Go for it -
An overview of previous research
A positive application of the “desensitisation to violence” effect
Books: Cooking For Geeks
I got this bad boy as a belated Christmas present from my big brother (see here why it was late), but I can confidently proclaim: it was well worth the wait.
This weighty tome from Jeff Potter looks like a text book, but dear lord, if all my text books were this readable, I would have read them all cover to cover by now.
Cooking For Geeks is made up of some science, some “hacks”, some interviews, and tonnes of little nuggets of fascinating facts.
Maybe you’ll love it for the recipes (whilst I haven’t yet tried any, they all sound amazing). Maybe you’ll love it for the miracle berries, or many of the other weird and wonderful additives (which sound AMAZING and I must experiment). Maybe you’ll love it for the stupidly dangerous over-clocked oven (pizza cooked in 45 seconds, anyone?).
If you’re me, you’ll surprise yourself by finding the section on pathogens the most interesting.
The only annoying thing is probably the fact that this book is written by an American, for Americans. Broiling? Seriously? It’s a grill. Also, the references to the FSA make you wonder about our own, British food standards. Must…do further research…
But the problems presented by that fact are minimal. Far too small a problem to detract from the pure joy that is getting immersed into the strange and wonderful world of geeky cooking. Yay!
There is also a Cooking For Geeks website to accompany the book. Double win.
Deadlines
I hate deadlines. This is the time of year where lots of people I know are stressing about coursework, essay deadlines, dissertations, and final exams.
I am no different. Luckily my dissertation is not due for several months yet, but that doesn’t mean I’m not busy – I have a project deadline next week, and seen exam questions to plan, as well as general revision for my finals. Oh, and did I mention I have to have a game plan for what lies after my MSc? Hmm. I have a few things in mind, but nothing certain yet, so you’ll have to wait on that front.
Don’t panic, folks – we’ve been working hard for this, and there’s no point losing your head. If you’ve been attending lectures and doing at least SOME reading, then it only takes a bit of knucking down now to make it all pay off.
Set yourself a revision timetable if you’re crap at “finding the time” – that way you’ll have no excuse.
Remember to take breaks – there is no point studying solidly and making yourself miserable.
At the same time, remember when to say “no” – you can’t drop everything every time a friend rings you up and invites you for a drink. This is especially true of your friends who are NOT in full time education – they may have forgotten how important these next few months are for you. Remind them that this studiousness is only temporary, and you’ll catch up another time! It’s not the end of the world.
And finally: it’ll be over soon! Your hard work WILL pay off, I swear. You’ll feel good once it’s all over.
If you’re worried about exams, or are suffering with study stress, take a peek at TheSite.org – they offer some simply and practical advice about looking after yourself over the exam season.
Good luck!
Synaesthesia in Chinese
OK, first of the series of Synaesthesia Conference lectures that I’ll be writing up. Today, I’ll be talking about a four year study conducted by Julia Simner (of University of Edinburgh) and her team. In their study, Simner and her colleagues looked at grapheme-colour synaesthesia, comparing the experiences of English synaesthetes (which are hugely studied) to the experiences of Chinese synaesthetes (who are barely studied at all). 
Where to start? Some general factoids about grapheme-colour synaesthesia. About 1% of the population are estimated to have it. This phenomena is where letters and numbers illicit a colour experience in the synaesthete. These experiences follow non-random rules – the same letters seem to always illicit the same colour experience, like “A” always being green, for example.
As for words, many synaesthetes find that whole words are coloured as a whole, rather than each individual letter being coloured. The way words are coloured seems to vary in three main ways:
- Some synaesthetes simply see each letter coloured individually (as per their own internal consistencies) – for example, “CAT” would be seen as BLUE-GREEN-RED (or whatever)
- Some synaesthetes find words are coloured by their initial letter – e.g. “CAT” would be BLUE, as “C” is blue for them
- Some synaesthetes have their words coloured by their initial vowel – again, “CAT” would be GREEN, as the initial vowel is usually green
There are two main theories as to what influences the colours of different letters and words. One is the semantic influence – this is where the unconscious meaning pinned to words and therefore letters determines what colour the letters will be. For example, we might associate “D” with dogs (A is for apple, B is for bird… I’m sure you were taught the alphabet in a similar fashion). Well, dogs are brown (usually), so maybe this is why some synaesthetes experience D as being brown.
The other theory is the frequency effect – more common letters are more common colours. For example, A is often red or green, whereas X is often something exotic like purple or gold. This isn’t too much of a surprise, either.
Hmm, what next…? Maybe a bit of info about Chinese languages (assume we’re talking about Mandarin throughout, but the rules probably cross over to Cantonese). Bear with me – my knowledge of Chinese is not great.
Chinese languages are ideographic (well, almost. We won’t get into that argument here) - they don’t have alphabets, so no letter units. They consist of word unit characters. There are two phonetic spelling systems (Pinyin and Bopomo), which Chinese children may be taught, in order to help them to speak the language before learning to write the script (which is intensely complicated). Pinyin uses a combination of Westernised spellings (for pronunciation) and a number (that indicates tone – Chinese languages are tonal, which means, depending how you say a word, it can have multiple meanings. Phew.)
Simner and her team wondered if this Pinyin system could function in a similar way to English in terms of its effects on synaesthetes – does the initial “letter” (or sound) or vowel sound effect the overall consistency in colour experience?
Well, yes and no. Their study showed that if native Chinese speakers were given the Pinyin phonetic spelling of a word character, they would experience the colours in a consistent manner similar to English synaesthetes – words beginning with a “y” sound would all be green, etc. etc. However, if they were given just traditional Chinese characters to look at (with no Pinyin) these consistencies did not carry over. Hmm. Back to square one.
Chinese script itself is made up of morphemes called “radicals”. Each character contains a semantic radical (which conveys meaning) and a phonetic radical (which tells you how the word should be pronounced). These radicals can be on either side of the character, and again, location affects meaning (I think you’re beginning to understand why Chinese script is so hard to learn…)
So, does the semantic or phonetic radical colour the character overall? Or do neither of them do this?
Simner and her colleagues found three variables – hue, saturation and brightness of colour experience. It seems that Chinese synaesthetes have a more subtle colour experience than Western synaesthetes – the radical on the left accounts for the hue, the semantic radical accounts for saturation, and the radical on the right for brightness. Weird.
The frequency effect occurs in Chinese, too – common characters (and radicals) are more common colours.
And that… is about all that I can compute. If you want to know more, please head on over to Julia Simner‘s profile page on Edinburgh Uni’s website, and feel free to send her your questions! 
Homeopathy
What the hell is this I spy down in the basement of the Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, in London’s Queen Square? @bengoldacre would be displeased…
UKSA 2011 Conference: Overview
Yesterday saw the first day of the annual UK Synaesthesia Association‘s conference, this year hosted by UEL. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend today’s half of the conference (and my Sunday didn’t go to plan anyway, but that’s another story). However, I intend to give you a taster of what I experienced yesterday.
As a foreword: I won’t go into the details of the various talks here. I intend to write up the main ideas of my favourite talks over the next few days, so look out for those. This post is more intended to impart a general overview of the atmosphere of the conference.
Well, to start with: synaesthesia. I’ve done a brief overview of this fascinating neurological anomaly before, but just as a refresher:
Synaesthesia is estimated to affect about 2% of the population. It comes in many different forms, all of them mind bloggling. Synaesthetes have a notoriously hard time explaining or describing their experience of the world to others. And yet, despite all this, there is very limited research done into synaesthesia.
Maybe, simply, because it’s not a problem. It’s really, really interesting, but it needs no cure. In fact, I have had many synaesthetes say to me that they can’t imagine living without it.
Synaesthesia is a crossing of the senses. The most commonly known types are grapheme-colour synaesthesia and sound-colour synaesthesia. To explain: grapheme colour synaesthesia is usually where an individual will experience a certain colour whenever they see a certain colour, letter or word. Read more about it here.
The UKSA conference gave the opportunity for people with an interest in synaesthesia (many of them synaesthetes themselves) to discuss research and network. Throughout the day, poster presentations (summarising studies) were on display in a downstairs room at UEL (pictured above), and a series of talks were given throughout the day. The talks I attended ranged from the very “sciencey” to the more phenomenological discussion of synaesthesia in art.
I can’t speak for others, but I think synaesthesia draws me because it is a wonderfully romantic idea – some unique individuals can see music in colour, taste colour, experience sounds as textured. This is beyond metaphor: this is a very real experience. And it’s not trained association: it’s very much automatic, internally consistent and unconsciously processed.
As always, if you reading this and it sounds familiar, please let me know – I’d love to hear about your own experiences.
Synaesthesia as a window into human nature
Yesterday, the University of East London had the pleasure of welcoming Ed Hubbard from Vanderbilt University, USA to give a talk about synaesthesia. It was a free public lecture, lasting about 90 minutes, and we had a pretty great turn out.
The lecture signalled the start of the annual UK Synaesthesia Association conference (this year hosted by UEL) – whilst the conference is still open to the public, they need to be paying public, so this free lecture was a bit more accessible to armchair psychologists.
Here’s the blurb from the talk:
What do David Hockney, Richard Feynman, Nabokov, Messiaen and Stevie Wonder all have in common? They all experience synaesthesia, a “union of the senses”.
For some synaesthetes, listening to a piece of music may also cause them to see specific colours while for others letters or numbers are always tinged a certain colour. Although synaesthesia has been known about for over 100 years, interest in synaesthesia has undergone resurgence in the past decade. This talk will discuss recent research, showing what synaesthetes already know: synaesthesia is real, and synaesthetes are neither telling stories, nor are they “crazy.”
More information about synaesthesia can be found here: www.uel.ac.uk/psychology/research/synaesthesia
I really enjoyed Ed’s talk – he’s a great speaker, and was very obviously passionate about his area of research. He’s also keen to get all you American synaesthetes involved with his research, so please don’t hesitate to get in contact with him: edhubbard [at] gmail [dot] com
More about synaesthesia to follow tomorrow, as I am, at this moment in time, at the conference. Need to rush off now – lectures to attend. Exciting stuff!
Books: Bad Science
You might have come across Ben Goldacre before – via his column in the Guardian, or via his Twitter-based angry ramblings. So you’ll know that this guy suffers no fools.
Doctor, journalist, science cheerleader – Ben Goldacre is perfectly positioned to expose malpractice in the world of science and medicine. And how well he does it.
Bad Science is, at its heart, a light-hearted non-fiction read. It made me laugh a lot (Brain Gym? Really?) but, I have to be honest, it made me a bit depressed. Although it made me feel smug and self-righteous (yes, detox and homeopathy are bunk! And here’s why…), it also made me despair – particularly the new chapter (unpublishable in the first edition, as Goldacre was going through a court case at the time) about Matthius Rath and AIDS in South Africa. You might think Big Pharma is evil. It is, but you ain’t seen nothing yet…
Goldacre doesn’t just make sweeping claims – he supports his views with example after example of evidence. With a comprehensive reference list and suggested further reading at the end of the book, Goldacre has nothing to hide. But it’s hard to feel empowered when he admits that the quacks have won, and things will always be this way – Bad Science is entrenched.
A thoroughly recommended read: very accessible, enlightening, funny, and realistic.
Getting Testy: How to be a psychology research participant
Recently, I’ve been back and forth to Goldsmiths College is New Cross. This all began when I got an email in my uni mailbox, asking for participants in a study looking at the cognitive ability of gamers. The only requirment was that I play >7 hours of computer games a week. Easily fulfilled.
And what was this? A £5 reimbursement for my time? Oh lovely – that’ll buy me lunch!
So the reward for me was threefold:
- provide vital data for a study into the psychology of gaming (and thus flesh out research AND help someone progress with their phD)
- actively see how other people conduct their research, in order to make sure mine is even better (i.e. see what works and what doesn’t, from a participant’s perspective)
- get a fiver!
Obviously, not all of these points will be relevant to everyone. I would hope point 1 is important to us all (yay, science + altruism), and point 3 is fab, as long as you don’t need to pay for travel to and from New Cross (which I don’t). Point 2 is great for anyone doing research now or in the future – for the rest of you, it can just be from the perspective of curiousity.
So what makes a good research participant?
Fellow researchers and students aren’t traditionally a good choice – they have a predisposition to “second guessing” the tests, and are thus preoccupied. Pay attention! You need to provide good and accurate data, and if you’re thoughts are elsewhere, you can’t do that.
Then there are money grabbers – people who are there purely for the reward (or students who need to participate in order to receive credits to pass their course). They will try to get the tests done ASAP, and therefore (again) will provide crappy data.
Next: it’s not a competition. This is especially important in self-report questionnaires – be HONEST, don’t try and show off how fabulous you are as a person (particularly if it’s not true). Data is always anonymised (unless the researcher tells you otherwise), so no one will know it’s you anyway, so just tell the truth.
What can you expect from psychological research? Well, it’s not that exciting, if I’m going to be perfectly honest. Most of it is infront-of-the-computer stuff, looking at shapes and colours, testing reaction times, short term memory, that sort of thing. Then there are the questionnaires – studies that involve self-report (you know the type – on a scale of 1-7, how muchdo you agree/disagree with this statement…)
Yes, it can be tedious, and yes, you ARE just a number in a spreadsheet, but without those numbers, we can’t do the research, and without the research, psychology can’t progress. Do YOU want to be resposibile for halting the progress of SCIENCE? Oh, and did I mention the fiver?
If you want to help out in the world of psychological research, get in touch with your local uni or college’s psychology department to see if they’re looking for participants. If you’re in London, drop me an email – I know of some fun ones!
Brain Awareness Day 2011 Wrap-up
Wow! What a night!
Brain Awareness Day 2011 was a roaring success. I had a bit of a rough night’s sleep on Tuesday evening, sweating over the impending event, thinking about all the things that could go wrong. But you know what? I needn’t have worried. It all ran seamlessly. The organisations all arrived, they set up beautiful stalls, my committee and my volunteer stewards were all WONDERFUL and waaaaay more calm than I was.
We had an audience of over 300. I was thrilled, as was Ash. The last time he ran this event (two years ago) it was to an audience of about 200.
We began with Ash’s lecture – a whistlestop tour of the brain, and the history of brain research. Cognitive neuropsychology is the love of Ash’s life, and his enthusiasm for the stuff came over wonderfully. We started off with the basic FAQ style fun facts (the brain is 77% water, it weighs only 2.5% of our total body weight but uses 20% of our body’s energy while we’re at rest). Next came a potted history of brain research – from a brief mention in a 3000BC papyrus scroll, through to a sudden flurry of activity at the end of the 19th century.
But the most interesting parts of Ash’s lecture came towards the end, when he discussed brain damage, and subsequent neurological research (i.e. his area of interest). The effects of brain damage can completely alter people’s lives – and this introduction lead us wonderfully into the drinks reception and info stalls.
Downstairs, two rooms had been beautifully set up with promotional materials for our various organisations and charities, as well as drinks and nibbles to keep everyone going. We had wonderful charities turn up: SANE, Encephalitis Society, Epilepsy Action, the Epilepsy Society, UKABIF and Headway East London. We also had some promotional material sent through by the Stroke Association and Mind to put on display and some great goodies from the Dana Foundation to give away – which were much loved by all!
This session allowed members of the public to find out more about the charities, and possibly offer their support by way of donations, or even volunteering. I know from my friends at SANE that they had a great number of people sign up to receive more info about volunteering - so a brilliant night for all those involved.
Finally, we had a great panel discussion, lead by Ash, with three of his study participants (and friends). All three have suffered some form of brain damage (with two of them surviving herpes simplex encephalitis, and one surviving a massive brain hemorrhage), which has completely changed their lives. Whereas Ash’s lecture gave us a clean cut text-book definition of prosopagnosia (or face blindness), here we had a chance to hear firsthand the life experiences of people with severe facial recognition problems. They related beautifully how their experiences had changed their lives, but how it had also changed their outlooks – it made them realise not that life is cruel (described as the “why me, why me” mentally by one of our guests), but more made them be grateful that they were alive. That you have “one life – live it”. An important message for everyone.
All in all, a fantastic, enlightening, thoroughly enjoyable evening.
Now, if you don’t mind, I have some sleep to catch up on…
Did you come to Brain Awareness Day at UEL? What did you think? Please share you thoughts, and photos if you have any! We’d love to hear your feedback.
Books: The Red Queen
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
Following on from yesterday’s review of Sexual Nature at the Natural History Museum, I thought I’d give you a “recommended read”. I actually finished this book about a month ago, but am only just now getting around to reviewing it. Don’t expect any ground-breaking reflection – I’m a bit weary at the moment.
Well, the long and short of it is: Matt Ridley is great. I’ve known this since I read his “Nature Via Nurture” last year, at which point my dad recommended this.
Here, Ridley looks at the question of: why sex? Sex uses a lot of energy, is slow, and requires two individuals. And it leads to a lot of dangerous competition. Well, sex has its various advantages, and Ridley looks at these systematically.
But the more entertaining portion of the book looks at various sexual behaviours: from sexy-son theory, to the thousands of genders in the mushroom family, you’re bound to be in for a few surprises.
My main love of Ridley comes from his rare ability to impart brilliant scientific knowledge, whilst still keeping it all fascinating and entertaining (I would NEVER describe Ridley as “dry”). Phrases like “a gigantic experiment called communism in a laboratory called Russia…” are bound to raise a smirk. And you will be bowled over by the blunt illustration of the interconnectedness of all human-beings (as early on as p. 12). Be amused by the Coolidge effect! Finally understand why gentlemen prefer blondes (or not)!
Definitely worth a look in – I enjoyed it very much, and imagine I will be reading it again in the not-too-distant future.
Contains Themes Of A Sexual Nature
Hoho. Gotcha. No porno here.
Actually, I’m talking about the new temporary exhibition at the Natural History Museum, entitled “Sexual Nature“, which opened recently.
As I said in my post yesterday, I went to visit the NHM with my friend Vin last Thursday, with the express intention of seeing this temporary exhibition (and going the gift shop, ofc.)
I’ve read mixed reviews of “Sexual Nature”, so wasn’t sure what to expect, but at only £4 for students, it’s not really money wasted, regardless.
Image from NHM website
I have to say, I was really pleasantly surprised by the exhibition – if a little weirded out, too.
You see, when you pass through the big, frosted glass doors behind the ticket desk, it feels a bit like you’ve just walked into a seedy sex shop: there are long curtains to walk around, and what I can only describe as “mood music” softly playing in the background. But do not be alarmed: behind the curtains awaits a wonderland of facts and figures, with slightly unnerving multimedia support. First up is the giant video screen showing chimps fornicating (and my lord, some of them look bored), which you can’t fail to notice as you walk in.
All around you are display cabinets with bizarre artefacts: penis bones, insects “caught in the act”, and even a pair of unfortunate locked foxes (if you don’t know what I mean by this, please go and look it up).
I think the strength of the exhibition lies in its variety: there are a multitude of of different ways the information is displayed, from the written boards (which are very readable), to the pictures, videos, display cabinets and even the slightly disturbing “Green Porno” – the image of Isabella Rosellini dressed as a snail will stay with me always (for good or for ill).
I don’t want to say much more, as it’ll spoil the surprises in store. In conclusion: I loved it. £4 well spent.
Sexual Nature is on display from now until 2nd October.
Open 10.00-17.50 daily, last admission 17.15.
Adult £8, Child and concessions £4, Family £21
Free to Members, Patrons and children aged 3 and under.
This exhibition contains frank information and imagery about sex.
Synaesthesia
OK, so you know about the Brain Awareness Day at UEL now.
But that is not all I have to share with you, oh no.
UEL will also be hosting a public lecture about synaesthesia this month! You remember synaesthesia – the phenomenon of sense-crossing? I’ve talked about it before, you know… Plus, there’s heaps of info available on the UEL synaesthesia research lab webpage.
Friday 25th March 2011 6pm
Synaesthesia as a window into human nature
by Edward Hubbard
Venue: CC1.01, Stratford Campus
Oh look, a pretty poster!
So, I hope as many of you can make it as possible. It’s set to be a really interesting event (if any of you have ever read any Ramachandran or Sacks before, you’ll know how intriguing synaesthesia is!)
The event has a listed Facebook event if you want to RSVP, and you can find more info at the UEL website.
IQsquared: Freedom of Information
Apparently, information just wants to be free. Does it? And do we want to liberate it?
I was hoping Jack Klaff of Intelligence Squared and his panel of experts would be able to give us some insight, but we didn’t seem to get anywhere close to a firm answer. As one speaker, Murad Ahmed (technology correspondent, The Times) tweeted mid-debate -
@muradahmed: Member of the audience at #iq2infofree says she’s confused about what we’re talking about. Oh dear
And, loathe to admit it, I’m sure that’s how many of us felt. The 90min open conversation bounded from research data, to WikiLeaks, to the current state of Libya and Egypt, to freedom of expression, to something about Inuits (I’m sorry, Nicola Triscott – I didn’t really follow, and you spoke so briefly! As the only woman on the panel, I would have liked you to have had more part in the discussion).
As the heated discussion was so varied, I think I’ll stick to what I know best: the availability of scientific research data. It’s notoriously difficult to get hold of, and Daniel Glaser (of the Wellcome Trust) explained why: when a scientist has been slogging away with his research for ten years, and comes up with a nugget of worthwhile info, that scientist would find it pretty galling if another person looked at their data, and used it to produce their own nugget of worthwhile scientific info. They produce a similar glorious breakthrough, but without having to do the time-consuming monkey work.
So what’s the problem here? Resentment between scientists? If scientists shared their research data, they would theoretically save a lot of effort all around and reach valuable conclusions faster. But then they’d have to share the glory – and unfortunately, as Dr Layla McCay put it -
@laylamccay: Of course. Altruism is not the most reliable motivator, and people do want to eat and feed their families…
But let’s not write off all scientists – as I pointed out on Twitter (and several people RTed, so I can only assume they agree), some scientists have a pure love of scientific knowledge, and are not just doing their research for money and glory. But, sadly, they are increasingly few and far between.
I won’t dwell on the subject of info released all over social networking sites (we’ve heard it all before – at one point in the evening, behaviour on Facebook and Twitter was coupled with the words “idiotic” and “naive”), but just to say: common sense, people. As with all things in life, if you don’t want people to know, then DON’T SAY IT.
What do you think? Do you think more information should be made public? Where do we draw the line? An article published in the Lancet in January suggested that it should be a condition of research funding that the research data is made freely available. Do you agree?
Read more about last night’s debate (and listen to it yourself, should you be so inclined!) on the IQsquared website.
You can go to many other IQsquared events around London – see their website for details.
The Dana Centre (where last night’s debate was hosted) is in South Kensington (down the road from the Natural History Museum), and is part of the Science Museum. They run regular talks and other events, most of them free. See their website for further details.
The hashtag from last night’s debate was #iq2infofree – feel free to have a look at what people were saying during the talk.
Brain Awareness Day 2011 – the poster is here!
Ooh, look, shiny official Brain Awareness Day poster!
Brain Awareness Day 2011
As part of International Brain Awareness Week (14-20th March 2011), my supervisor Dr Ashok Jansari will be hosting a Brain Awareness Day at the School of Psychology at our UEL Stratford campus. My part in all this is quite exciting – I get to be his personal assistant in the proceedings. Which means I am figuratively representing the event online!
Well, what’s involved? The event will start with a public lecture entitled ‘The Life of Brian (the Brain)’, giving a tour of the history of our understanding of the brain. This will begin with the first written documentation of the word ‘brain’ in a 3000 year old Egyptian papyrus and move towards how modern neuropsychologists are beginning to unravel the mysteries of an organ that is more complex than the most advanced computer known to man. By using examples from his own work, Dr Jansari will demonstrate how we can understand the devastating consequences of some forms of brain damage but also about the preserved abilities following trauma.
This information can then be used to help understand how the healthy brain functions and then this information can be used to develop rehabilitation to help the lives of the patients. For example, David cannot recognise any faces (including his wife’s), but can tell you what whether someone is happy or sad and whose vision is good enough to look at a football shirt and tell you which premiership team it belongs to. Then there is Nicola, who is so profoundly amnesic that she makes the hero of the classic film Memento look like he has a good memory! However, by capitalising on unconscious forms of memory, Dr Jansari’s team taught Nicola to use a complex Palm Top electronic device to remember to take her medication – despite this remarkable learning, each time she saw the Palm Top, she claimed never to have used it before.
After the public lecture, there will be a reception between 7 and 8pm with information displays by organisations that work with individuals with brain-related issues (e.g. Headway and the Encephalitis Society), posters about research at the School of Psychology and even models of the brain that the audience can take apart. The evening will conclude with Dr Jansari chairing a panel discussion about ‘living with brain damage’ where two of his research patients will discuss both what it means to live with this terrible life-changing event but also that it certainly is not the end of the world…..
Dr Jansari’s Brain Awareness Day’s have been really popular in the past – you don’t need to be an academic to get something out of this. If you are simply just interested in brains and what they do (and who wouldn’t be?!) then come to Stratford and enjoy an evening of exploration.
If you fancy coming along, it’s FREE and open to all – Wednesday 16th of March, 6-9pm, at UEL’s Stratford Campus
You can also find Brain Awareness Day listed on the Dana Foundation’s website.
Books: Phantoms in the Brain
Phantoms in the Brain: Human Nature and the Architecture of the Mind
Wow. I honestly don’t want to say too much, because I really think you should go and read this book yourself. All of the reader reviews are right: it’s fascinating, it’s educational and most importantly, it is very very readable.
I’ve seen Ramachandran talk live (at the Royal Institution) and the enthusiasm and showmanship that he presented then really comes through in this book.
I actually got two copies for Christmas – one from Ben and one from my dad. Confusion over Amazon wishlists – Ben obviously doesn’t know how to use them! Bless him. So rather than send the book back, we gave one copy right back to my dad (as he is all about consciousness, phenomenology, and the mystery of the mind).
Now, it took me three weeks to read this. It took my dad one flight back to Dubai. He reads insanely fast! But he says he couldn’t put it down. He’s a very brain-modular sort of person, and his favourite chapters were towards the end, when Ramachandran discusses qualia, and the source and purpose of consciousness.
Personally, I’m all about the earlier chapters, when Ramachandran looks at a variety of different neurological phenomena. He presents us with a variety of case studies, each with very particular forms of brain damage, leading to very unusual problems. There are his famous “phantom limb” patients – people who, following an amputation, can still feel sensation in their absent limb. Later, he returns to the subject of phantoms, by discussing the mindboggling (but increasingly rare) phenomenon of pseudocyesis, or false pregnancy.
But I don’t want to discuss this book at length – I feel it would detract from your own experience when reading it.
If you like Oliver Sacks, you will love this. If you like “unusualness” and maybe even mystery stories, this is for you. Go get it. There are even some optical illusions you can play with (just don’t do them on the train – you’ll look like an idiot).
Don’t fancy reading? Ramachandran has also presented his cases in a two-part BBC4 documentary.
Mental Floss #2
Well, I’ve been a bit under the weather, and then yesterday morning discovered that one of my lovely rats (Bubble) has quite a big lump on her tum. So I KNOW it hasn’t been long since Mental Floss #1, but I’m in need of serious perspective taking right now. So here we go: 5 things that are keeping me grounded at the mo.
- My rats. I’ve been giving them serious love these past couple of days (I think they’re getting a bit sick of me tbh!!
) as I was suddenly faced with their mortality. Big sighs, but big loves, too. - Stickers! I love stickers. IMHO the bestest stickers come from Paperchase and Accesorize. Nothing brings out the kid in me like dotting stuff with cartoon kittens.
- Shaketastic. Seriously. OK, I’ve lost a grand total 8lbs so far, but I needed this last night. Nothing says instant comfort like ferrero rocher & kinder bueno, mixed with vanilla iced cream and topped with oreo crumbs.
- Red Dead Redemption. Well, not playing it, but watching Ben play it. More on this at a later date…
- Knitting. OK, I have to admit, I STILL haven’t finished the Firestarter jumper *makes the sign of the cross*, but I’ve gotten a lot of pleasure out of perusing other people’s knitted goods. And wondering where the hell they find the time. Alice Bell is my favourite recent find. I think I have a bit of a girl crush – she’s amazing.
Books: The 2010 Round-up
Well, at the start of 2010, I resolved to read more. And I think I’ve done pretty damn well. Here, as we stand at the edge of the abyss, and the last dregs of 2010 filter away, I can happily say that I have read quite a few books this year.
It’s been tricky, too: throwing myself into a scientific discipline at the last minute (shut up, physicists: psychology so is a science. It has ology and everything) meant that I faced a lot of academic reading, in the form of text books and journal articles. But in between all of that, I have managed a grand total of 39 books this year – 23 non-fiction, and 16 fiction (where I’ve listed text books, that’s where I have actually read them, cover to cover). And this is what they were:
- 30.01.10 – Nicky Hayes – A First Course in Psychology (nf)
- 09.02.10 – Matt Ridley – Nature Via Nurture (nf)
- 01.03.10 – James Hogg – The Three Perils of Man (f)
- 07.03.10 – Adam Phillips – Monogamy (nf)
- 22.03.10 – John Marzillier & John Hall – What is clinical psychology? (nf)
- 24.03.10 – Aldous Huxley – Brave New World (f)
- 30.03.10 – Terry Pratchett – Nation (f)
- 22.04.10 – Walter J. Freeman – How Brains Make Up Their Minds (nf)
- 15.05.10 – G. K. Chesterton – Father Brown Stories (f)
- 19.05.10 – Russell L. Ackoff, Herbert J. Addison & Sally Bibb – Management f-Laws (nf)
- 20.05.10 – Lewis Carroll – Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (f)
- 26.05.10 – Siri Hustvedt – The Shaking Woman or A History Of My Nerves (nf)
- 29.05.10 – Terry Pratchett – Thud! (f)
- 02.06.10 – Oliver Sacks – The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat (nf)
- 23.06.10 – Wilkie Collins – The Woman in White (f)
- 29.06.10 – Joseph Conrad – Heart Of Darkness (f)
- 02.07.10 – David Hume – On Suicide (nf)
- 05.07.10 – *Iain Banks – Complicity (f)
- 22.07.10 – Jonathan Weiner – Time, Love, Memory (nf)
- 26.07.10 – Christopher Fowler – Spanky (f)
- 14.08.10 – Robert Winston – Human Instinct (nf)
- 22.08.10 – Iain M. Banks – Consider Phlebas (f)
- 28.08.10 – American Psychological Association – Concise Rules of APA Style (nf)
- 08.09.10 – Andy Field & Graham Hole – How to Design and Report Experiments (nf)
- 13.09.10 – Nick Braisby (ed.) – Cognitive Psychology: A Methods Companion (nf)
- 20.09.10 – Ken Kesey – One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest (f)
- 07.10.10 – Steven Pinker – The Language Instinct (nf)
- 12.10.10 – *Paul Broks – Into The Silent Land (nf)
- 21.10.10 – Daniel Levitin – This Is Your Brain On Music (nf)
- 31.10.10 – Oliver Sacks – Musicophilia (nf)
- 07.11.10 – The Poetry and Short Stories of Dorothy Parker (f)
- 10.11.10 – Alain de Botton – Status Anxiety (nf)
- 11.11.10 – Richard Bach – Jonathan Livingstone Seagull (f)
- 14.11.10 – Richard P. Feynman – The Meaning of it All (nf)
- 29.11.10 – *Andrew Solomon – The Noonday Demon (nf)
- 04.12.10 – Iain Banks – The Bridge (f)
- 26.12.10 – Axel Scheffler – How to Keep a Pet Squirrel (f)
- 27.12.10 – Dr Liz Miller – Mood Mapping (nf)
- 29.12.10 – Michael S. Gazzaniga – Nature’s Mind (nf)
And I’ve just started the first one for 2011. How about you? Did you chomp through some good reads this year? Which were your favourites? I’ve put an asterisk by my three absolute favourites this year, and massively recommend them.
Books: Mood Mapping
Mood Mapping: Plot your way to emotional health and happiness
I should probably start by saying I did not like this book. In fact, there are no significant redeeming features, in my honest opinion. So, if you have read this book, use this book or like this book for whatever reason, then please give this review a miss. Because I didn’t like it, this review will mainly concentrate on WHY I didn’t like it. These opinions, being opinions, are not debatable.
Where to start? Probably at the beginning, is best. When this book was first released, I read an interesting review of it in the Guardian. So, when I saw this book in my local BHF book shop, I thought “what the hell” and thought I’d give it a go. I have never read a self-help style book in my life, and now I know why.
Dr Liz Miller is an ex-neurosurgeon, and so you would expect her to be a sensible woman of science. She’s not: she is full of absolute crap. I was willing to sit through her sad stories of struggling through her breakdowns (she says in the text that she is bipolar, but she doesn’t specify what type. I suspect cyclothymia), and to start with, her advice is pretty sound. However, it is also common sense: keep a mood diary so that you can try and see patterns in mood vs. time of day, events, foods, etc.
Anything that didn’t fall under this header of “common sense advice” was not useful at all, and in fact made me rather angry. One of my common gripes is preachy, self-righteous types: Miller is one of these. Her favourite thing to preach about, it would seem, is food. I knew this would be a problem from the Introduction, where she gently declares a war on meat, alcohol, and processed food. Later in the book, she all but blames mood disorders solely on what we eat.
Let me get one thing straight: PROCESSED FOOD WILL NOT MAKE YOU DROP DEAD. You do not need to be on a “raw food diet” to be happy. Let’s look at the evidence: you know plenty of people who eat microwave meals, take aways and stuff from tins on an almost daily basis, and yet they are functioning perfectly. And then there is “Doctor” Gillian McKeith. I’m sure you’ve all been forwarded a copy of the McKeith vs. Nigella email (they’re both 50, and yet…) She doesn’t look like a happy bunny. She looks fucking miserable.
Fair enough, we’re all sensitive to different foods in different ways – I’m not all that susceptible to caffeine, but I am more careful about alcohol nowadays. And I think that’s the key: you do NOT have to give up everything fun or delicious to live well. You need to know your own body. And that’s where Mood Mapping MIGHT be useful: just for finding patterns in your mood in response to external stimuli. But you do NOT NEED TO BUY THIS BOOK (RRP: £12.99) to be able to do that. Food is not the root to aaaaaall your problems.
On a housekeeping note: Miller needs to get hold of a better proofreader. Even my casual, half-attentive reading of this book (often accompanied by a background of Christmas TV and the sound of family members reading articles from the newspaper outloud) spotted a whole menagerie of errors. Most hilarious IMHO was pp. 237-8, and the supposed “Causes of bipolar”…
“…Bipolar disorder can also start after head injury, treatment with anti-malarial drugs, particularly mefloquinine, head injury, childhood abuse, drug abuse…”
And later on in this ridiculous list of madness and repetition: post-traumatic stress disorder. WHAT?! PTSD is a mental illness in its own right, not a “cause” of bipolar. I think she’s getting confused: violent mood swings are not the only characteristic feature of bipolar. They are a symptom. And guess what? They just so happen to be quite a significant symptom of PTSD, too. Just because someone is having severe mood swings does not mean they have suddenly “come down with” bipolar disorder.
I’m trying to keep this short, so here’s the last and most important reason why I hate this book:
“…what my research and experience did prove is that mood and its associated chemicals respond more to the five keys to mood than they do to drugs. By physically managing your mood, it is often possible to dispense with drugs entirely.” (p. 233)
My, that’s a sweeping statement. And, “prove”? Really? Please, tell this to anyone suffering from psychosis, or chronic, major depression. Some people simply cannot function without medication. Some people can’t even cope WITH medication, it’s that bad. MY research and experience INDICATES this. Read a far better and more realistic account of mood disorder.
By all means, I am not poo-pooing Miller’s personal trauma and experience of the mental health system, but that is what it is: a personal trauma. She found something that works for her. Good. She has no right to prescribe it to others.
