Mike- I share some of your concerns about the op-ed piece. Their explanations actually seem a rather old fashioned and dualistic presentation. That the brain, in their words, "writes down each memory" again each time you recall it, for example. They state this as if we a) know it is true and b) know how the brain does this. It is certainly computational and bordering on if not crossing into dualism which is odd since neuroscientists can surely be computational but are usually monists. (Although some are certainly bad philosophers). :) Anyhoo, I really think this piece might be good discussion fodder if you want to point out the problems with the explanations, or talk about levels of analysis, or have examples of the mind/body problem, or talk about the issues of people's eager acceptance of explanations that are neuro-physiological/-anatomical, etc. Perhaps it intrigues me most as an example of what it purports to inform against! Surely this piece would place into the minds of students "facts" which are conjectural explanation. Guess which one's they'd be more likely to choose on the exam- Mike, I think you are exactly right. Tim _______________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor and Chair Department of Psychology The College of Idaho Caldwell, ID 83605 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and systems "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker -----Original Message----- From: Mike Palij [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 6/27/2008 6:34 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Mike Palij Subject: Re: [tips] How the Brain Lies to Us 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]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
<<winmail.dat>>
