On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:51:21 -0700, Bob Wildblood wrote: >Tipsters, >An interesting article on how the brain deals with memory from >the OpEd section of the NT Times this morning. It seems that it >would be relatively easily understood by undergraduates even in >an intro psych course. >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27aamodt.html?th&emc=th >http://tinyurl.com/685f2o
There are a few "unfortunate" aspects about this article, the first being is that it is the "brain" and not the "mind" that lies to us. The effects referred to in the article neither require a neurophysiological explanation nor were they discovered in the context of neurophysiological research. The mere correlation of brain activity with performance on certain tasks have been implicitly converted in a causal pattern of artivity the supposedly explains why people behave in the way they do. This poses a problem: If we want people or students to be more accurate in how they evaluate claims or information should we: (1) wait for appropriate drugs which will alter the underlying neurphysiological process that give rise to such things as source amnesia or (2) teach people how to evaluate statements and their own knowledge, how to access evidence that either corroborates or disproves the statement, and how to think more critically about the world given that all of our knowledge is tentative and subject to revision in the light of new data/observations? It seems like (1) is more likely to get exposure in the popular media while (2) might be dismissed as just an old-fashioned, out of date way of thinking about things (i.e., doesn't have the sex appeal of pop neuroscience). I wonder, when we understand the brain processes that world class chessmaster engage in, will that lead us to "produce" even better chessmasters? -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
