The neurons that shaped civilization. Empathy & types of mirror neurons.
June 8, 2013 1:03 PM Subscribe
"There is no real independent self, aloof from other human beings, inspecting the world, inspecting other people. You are, in fact, connected not just via Facebook and internet, you’re actually quite literally connected by your neurons." — V S Ramachandran
Foosnark, the person who wrote that article, Alison Gopnik, is not a neuroscientist. She is a professor of psychology and affiliate professor of philosophy. I'm inclined to value the opinion of V S Ramachandran on this topic.
BobsterLobster, is the video watchable for you here at TED talks? Or here on YouTube.
posted by nickyskye at 1:25 PM on June 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
BobsterLobster, is the video watchable for you here at TED talks? Or here on YouTube.
posted by nickyskye at 1:25 PM on June 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
Interesting, but nope.
A Slate article? You understand the concept of Slate right?
posted by delmoi at 1:42 PM on June 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
A Slate article? You understand the concept of Slate right?
posted by delmoi at 1:42 PM on June 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
Interesting, but nope.Okay, I read that article. Yes, it's complete #slatepitch nonsense. Her basic point is that "mirror neurons" are not actually specific, individual neurons, instead there is a "mirror system" in the brain. Made up of neurons, presumably.
posted by delmoi at 1:48 PM on June 8, 2013
Since when were neuroscientists the recognised authorities on tool use, language, and theory of mind (if I'm watching the right video)?
All we've got here are neurons that fire both when you do an action and when you see the same action. Actually the brain does a lot of recognition; it would be surprising if such neurons did not exist somewhere. Why is it remarkable that the brain should recognise the same action when done by you and by someone else? The idea that all by themselves these particular neurons endow us with empathy, theory of mind and the rest is drastically unwarranted.
posted by Segundus at 1:53 PM on June 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
All we've got here are neurons that fire both when you do an action and when you see the same action. Actually the brain does a lot of recognition; it would be surprising if such neurons did not exist somewhere. Why is it remarkable that the brain should recognise the same action when done by you and by someone else? The idea that all by themselves these particular neurons endow us with empathy, theory of mind and the rest is drastically unwarranted.
posted by Segundus at 1:53 PM on June 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
A Slate article? You understand the concept of Slate right?
I think I do, because I write for them a lot. The concept of Slate is that, unlike every other magazine on the planet, they have a bias in favor of actual experts. If they want to write about a question of history, they ask a historian, and if they want to write about a point of linguistics, they ask a linguist, and if they want to write about a point of mathematics, they ask me. They let me put actual math in my articles. They let me put equations in my articles. Nobody else does that.
I have no opinion about this particular neurological question or this particular article.
posted by escabeche at 1:59 PM on June 8, 2013 [9 favorites]
I think I do, because I write for them a lot. The concept of Slate is that, unlike every other magazine on the planet, they have a bias in favor of actual experts. If they want to write about a question of history, they ask a historian, and if they want to write about a point of linguistics, they ask a linguist, and if they want to write about a point of mathematics, they ask me. They let me put actual math in my articles. They let me put equations in my articles. Nobody else does that.
I have no opinion about this particular neurological question or this particular article.
posted by escabeche at 1:59 PM on June 8, 2013 [9 favorites]
Since when were neuroscientists the recognised authorities on tool use, language, and theory of mindSo if you have to be an expert in every field you talk about, we shouldn't have any cross-disciplinary research? Like an anthropologist shouldn't be talking to a geneticist about evolution and tool use because you can't be an expert in both? Or if they do, no one should ever talk about it because, obviously, anyone would did could only be an expert in one of the topics?
Anyway, neuroscientists know as much about the biological basis for language as anyone else, in fact, probably more. And "theory of the mind"? As far as actual science is concerned neuroscience is the theory of the mind.
posted by delmoi at 1:59 PM on June 8, 2013
I think I do, because I write for them a lot. The concept of Slate is that, unlike every other magazine on the planet, they have a bias in favor of actual experts.I'm talking about slate's reputation for publishing "contrarian" positions, thus the "#slatepitch" hashtag. The article makes a strong claim about mirror neurons a "myth", and she repeatedly calls it a myth. It makes it sound as if the science behind mirror neurons is invalid or something.
But she, never gives us any evidence that mirror neurons have been disproven or anything like that, instead we get stuff like:
There are many parts of the brain that use up oxygen when we see another person perform an action, and many parts that use up oxygen when we perform that action ourselves. The imaging studies tell us that there is some overlap between these two patterns of activation; some parts of the brain work hard in both situations. And the same seems to be true for seeing and producing emotional expressions, and for seeing and feeling pain. (Researchers describe these brain areas as being part of a "mirror system.")So the takeaway is that we should be calling it a "mirror system" instead of "mirror neurons"
But instead of writing an article with a sensible headline like "'Mirror Neurons' more accurately described as 'Mirror System'" Slate publishes an article that, if you only skim it appears to be claiming that mirror neurons don't exist or something like that. Probably, they'll get a lot more hits, but ultimately it just makes people dumber.
posted by delmoi at 2:12 PM on June 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
Fine, don't like Slate?
http://www.talkingbrains.org/2009/09/what-mirror-neurons-are-really-doing.html
As I watched the video, I thought "this is kind of a bullshit leap" as if the development of civilization were suddenly spurred on by hominids developing motor neurons. Other primates have them, and songbirds have them. They don't have civilizations.
"It's neuroscience! We have expensive, awesome machines that can watch your brain!" has been used in a lot of really questionable pop science in the last couple decades. I am not an expert, but this struck me as more of the same.
posted by Foosnark at 2:46 PM on June 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
http://www.talkingbrains.org/2009/09/what-mirror-neurons-are-really-doing.html
As I watched the video, I thought "this is kind of a bullshit leap" as if the development of civilization were suddenly spurred on by hominids developing motor neurons. Other primates have them, and songbirds have them. They don't have civilizations.
"It's neuroscience! We have expensive, awesome machines that can watch your brain!" has been used in a lot of really questionable pop science in the last couple decades. I am not an expert, but this struck me as more of the same.
posted by Foosnark at 2:46 PM on June 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's best, when reading pop cognitive science, to keep in mind Carl Sagan's rule of thumb that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That a certain type of neuron was largely responsible for the development of human civilization surely qualifies as an extraordinary claim. There is no direct evidence for mirror neurons in humans. Not only that, but I don't see how this theory could ever be testable. So... fun speculation, but don't take it seriously.
As for mirror neurons themselves, I must admit that I've never understood the fascination with them. The visual system is hooked up to the motor system, and so eventually learns to associate the visual consequences of an animal's own actions with the sight of another animal performing the same actions. It's cool that you can demonstrate this neurophysiologically, but attributing it to a special kind of neuron with a catchy name is just silly. It's not really any better to talk about the "mirror neuron system" when all that really means is "the entire visual system, and also motor system, and probably parts of the limbic system, and certain characteristics of how all three are wired together, all of which is the product of a complex interaction between genetics and environment." And then once you're willing to deal with the problem at this level of complexity what you're really saying is "the development of empathy is responsible for the development of empathy", and suddenly all your explanatory power has leeched away.
I like to geek out about grid and place cells instead. You've probably never heard of of them, they're not that popular.
posted by IjonTichy at 3:36 PM on June 8, 2013 [4 favorites]
As for mirror neurons themselves, I must admit that I've never understood the fascination with them. The visual system is hooked up to the motor system, and so eventually learns to associate the visual consequences of an animal's own actions with the sight of another animal performing the same actions. It's cool that you can demonstrate this neurophysiologically, but attributing it to a special kind of neuron with a catchy name is just silly. It's not really any better to talk about the "mirror neuron system" when all that really means is "the entire visual system, and also motor system, and probably parts of the limbic system, and certain characteristics of how all three are wired together, all of which is the product of a complex interaction between genetics and environment." And then once you're willing to deal with the problem at this level of complexity what you're really saying is "the development of empathy is responsible for the development of empathy", and suddenly all your explanatory power has leeched away.
I like to geek out about grid and place cells instead. You've probably never heard of of them, they're not that popular.
posted by IjonTichy at 3:36 PM on June 8, 2013 [4 favorites]
I will say that Ramachandran was responsible for one of my favorite grad school moments when I got him to (cheerfully!) admit that one of his theories implied that it was okay to torture autistic children.
posted by IjonTichy at 3:37 PM on June 8, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by IjonTichy at 3:37 PM on June 8, 2013 [6 favorites]
The mirror neuron theory is definitely fraught with problems about where action understanding takes place. It is more likely these "mirror neurons" fire in patterns as a result of upstream activity relating to understanding. Their activity would more likely be a byproduct, rather than a cause.
posted by ssri at 4:07 PM on June 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by ssri at 4:07 PM on June 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
Meh. I don't see why this sort of ability can't just be a consequence of more general rational abilities. I can tell that certain things are similar to other things. One of the similarities I can recognize is that between me and other people. Maybe this is an ability that is so important that part of the brain evolved to handle that type of processing in particular. But, prima facie, I don't see any reason to think that such abilities should require a special module... (Of course, this is a comment that doesn't rise above shooting the shit...)
I once heard someone say that they hoped to find "the part of the brain responsible for homelessness..." A non-expert, presumably, but that utterance seems indicative of a certain tendency...
posted by Fists O'Fury at 4:07 PM on June 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
I once heard someone say that they hoped to find "the part of the brain responsible for homelessness..." A non-expert, presumably, but that utterance seems indicative of a certain tendency...
posted by Fists O'Fury at 4:07 PM on June 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm inclined to value the opinion of V S Ramachandran on this topic.
Speaking as a cognitive psychologist who works closely with neuroscientists myself, I can assure you that Ramachandran is widely viewed as a showboating self-promoter who is all-too-willing to make extravagant speculative leaps without substantive evidence. The mere fact that most of the evidence for this mirror system has been observed in animals without theory of mind undermines the claims that this brain system is the basis of civilization and morality.
As always, the answer is to try to seek out a scientific counterpoint from a peer-reviewed source:
Given their previous work, it would have been natural for Rizzolatti's group to interpret mirror neurons as involved in action selection rather than action understanding. They did not make this assumption because, at the time, the data suggested that monkey behavior did not support such an interpretation. Recent evidence shows that monkeys do, in fact, exhibit behaviors that support this alternative interpretation. Thus, the original basis for claiming that mirror neurons mediate action understanding is no longer compelling. There are independent arguments against the action understanding claim and in support of a sensorimotor learning origin for mirror neurons. Therefore, the action understanding theory of mirror neuron function requires serious reconsideration, if not abandonment.
Counterpoints of this kind are not difficult to find, but they don't generally lend themselves to whiz-bang pop-science journalism or empty-calorie TED Talks. Additionally, many frustratingly lie behind subscription paywalls.
The prudent course is to view this topic as one under active and contentious investigation, and to make an accounting of the multiple hypothese currently in print and their respective supporting evidence. At the moment, the preponderance of the evidence supports the view that some kind of mirror system exists, but there is widespread disagreement about how sophisticated an interpretation the evidence can support. As such, anyone who asserts unambiguously that we know what these neurons are for is selling you a bill of goods.
posted by belarius at 6:18 PM on June 8, 2013 [10 favorites]
Speaking as a cognitive psychologist who works closely with neuroscientists myself, I can assure you that Ramachandran is widely viewed as a showboating self-promoter who is all-too-willing to make extravagant speculative leaps without substantive evidence. The mere fact that most of the evidence for this mirror system has been observed in animals without theory of mind undermines the claims that this brain system is the basis of civilization and morality.
As always, the answer is to try to seek out a scientific counterpoint from a peer-reviewed source:
Given their previous work, it would have been natural for Rizzolatti's group to interpret mirror neurons as involved in action selection rather than action understanding. They did not make this assumption because, at the time, the data suggested that monkey behavior did not support such an interpretation. Recent evidence shows that monkeys do, in fact, exhibit behaviors that support this alternative interpretation. Thus, the original basis for claiming that mirror neurons mediate action understanding is no longer compelling. There are independent arguments against the action understanding claim and in support of a sensorimotor learning origin for mirror neurons. Therefore, the action understanding theory of mirror neuron function requires serious reconsideration, if not abandonment.
Counterpoints of this kind are not difficult to find, but they don't generally lend themselves to whiz-bang pop-science journalism or empty-calorie TED Talks. Additionally, many frustratingly lie behind subscription paywalls.
The prudent course is to view this topic as one under active and contentious investigation, and to make an accounting of the multiple hypothese currently in print and their respective supporting evidence. At the moment, the preponderance of the evidence supports the view that some kind of mirror system exists, but there is widespread disagreement about how sophisticated an interpretation the evidence can support. As such, anyone who asserts unambiguously that we know what these neurons are for is selling you a bill of goods.
posted by belarius at 6:18 PM on June 8, 2013 [10 favorites]
As I watched the video, I thought "this is kind of a bullshit leap" as if the development of civilization were suddenly spurred on by hominids developing motor neurons. Other primates have them, and songbirds have them. They don't have civilizations.Reading that blog post, it sounds as though the author disagrees with the "scientific consensus" on the "mirror system", and has some reasonable arguments for his interpretation.
"It's neuroscience! We have expensive, awesome machines that can watch your brain!" has been used in a lot of really questionable pop science in the last couple decades. I am not an expert, but this struck me as more of the same.
That's a big difference then posting "Interesting, but nope" and linking to a misleading slate article.
posted by delmoi at 6:40 AM on June 9, 2013
I am sure I have mirror neurons because that his how my Jennifer Aniston neuron does its makeup.
posted by srboisvert at 9:22 AM on June 9, 2013
posted by srboisvert at 9:22 AM on June 9, 2013
I once heard someone say that they hoped to find "the part of the brain responsible for homelessness..." A non-expert, presumably, but that utterance seems indicative of a certain tendency...
I think they may find this. Just it won't be in the brains of the homeless.
posted by srboisvert at 9:26 AM on June 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think they may find this. Just it won't be in the brains of the homeless.
posted by srboisvert at 9:26 AM on June 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
I heard about this "mirror neuron" stuff a while back and it seems that there is a huge logical leap there that VS Ramachandran just jumps over.
And there are in fact a lot of other (more sensible) explanations that don't require civilization or empathy. Hence i'm going with "its all a load of psuedo science nonsense for now."
posted by mary8nne at 11:07 AM on June 9, 2013
And there are in fact a lot of other (more sensible) explanations that don't require civilization or empathy. Hence i'm going with "its all a load of psuedo science nonsense for now."
posted by mary8nne at 11:07 AM on June 9, 2013
« Older Deflated | The Amish Are Getting Fracked Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by BobsterLobster at 1:10 PM on June 8, 2013