5 ms·

How to Get to Genius

35 points by samrat 16y ago

apl 16y ago
> Thoughts are the neural activity in your brain, and they > get stored as physical objects -- the neural connections. > They get stronger as you think more about them and they > can go away too – so we have a scientific explanation for > the adage, “Use it or lose it.” Why do people feel this constant urge to sprinkle their fluff posts with not-even-semi-correct pop-neuroscience? He clearly doesn't know anything about neural plasticity, so why cheapen everything by pretending?
- tokenadult 16y ago
  What's your recommendation for a scientifically responsible overview of neuroscience for a nonspecialist reader? I think that's what most of the readers of HN might be looking for, and I'd be happy to look up anything you recommend.
  - mooftard 16y ago
    I'm not looking for that and I'm a an HN reader. I find it to be off topic. You can pick up any book on neuroscience and it will be better than that shit blog post. If you want something easy to understand listen to this: http://www.radiolab.org/ http://www.radiolab.org/.
  - apl 16y ago
    Choice of resources should depend on what you're interested in. Monolithic "neuroscience" remains a myth -- it's a vast field, ranging from cognitive psychology to biophysics. A scientist researching synaptic transmission mechanisms doesn't share much common ground with a guy doing high-level stuff. For what's commonly called cognitive neuroscience (which generally includes memory, cognition, learning and so on, thereby having the most relevance for a nonspecialist reader), Gazzaniga/Ivry/Mangun (2008) remains an absolutely solid introduction that doesn't dumb stuff down while still providing plenty of illustrations and worthwhile patient cases. Covers basic neurobiology in sufficient detail. My recommendation for this kind of stuff. For molecular and general neurobiology, I recommend the first few chapters of Squire's "Fundamental Neuroscience." Kandel's good as well. If you're looking for something more basic, Carlson's "Physiology of Behavior" is a brilliant and rather entertaining book.
- espeed 16y ago
  That's pretty much a direct quote from MIT neuroscientist Sebastian Seung's TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sebastian_seung.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sebastian_seung.html The idea that neural connections (synapses) grow stronger from learning is well supported... "synapses grow stronger when we're awake as we learn and adapt to an ever-changing environment" (http://www.med.wisc.edu/news-events/news/sleep-tempers-growth-of-synapses/842 http://www.med.wisc.edu/news-events/news/sleep-tempers-growt...) "Most contemporary neuro-scientists agree that learning takes place at the neural switch points – the synapses. Research has shown that experience can change synapses: they can become either stronger or weaker; and this change can persist for a lifetime. Changes in synaptic conduction are without doubt the basis for learning and long-term memory" (http://www.mentalspaceresearch.com/english-articles/expanding-the-neuro-in-nlp http://www.mentalspaceresearch.com/english-articles/expandin...). "One area of change is the synapses, the connections between neurons, which are altered as the brain receives stimuli. “What happens when you’re awake is you produce an overall strengthening of synapses,” Dr. Tononi said. “That’s good, because that’s how you learn.” But that is unsustainable in the long run, because stronger synapses require more energy and material, and there’s a limit to how much of both is available. “It’s as if in the morning you start with a V-6 engine,” he said, “and in the evening you find yourself idling, but you’re running a V-8.” Stronger synapses are also bigger, but the brain cannot grow bigger or denser. “If you strengthen synapses because you learn, soon you’d reach a point where you can’t learn further,” he added. So Dr. Tononi and a colleague, Chiara Cirelli, have hypothesized that during sleep, the synapses weaken. The downscaling is across the board, so that the synapses’ relative strength is maintained. Those that have been used (those involved in learning) stay stronger than those that haven’t." (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/science/29obslee.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/science/29obslee.html?_r=1)
  - mooftard 16y ago
    They don't get stronger, they simply get different. Thinking on a past experience, for example, changes the memory of the experience. Thoughts can actually be corrupted by thinking about them. Use it and lose it in just as many cases as the opposite.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
nicolasp 16y ago
Previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2313755 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2313755
efields 16y ago
Practice, practice, practice.
Synthetase 16y ago
I'm not sure why this was front-paged. Twice. I disagree with the premise that a mere mortal can spontaneously boot strap him-self to a higher plane of thinking through a simple change in perspective. Revolutionary breakthroughs are a product of obsession and hard work. Aha moments are built on top of a lot of grinding. The Principia Mathematica stands testimony to this. This post could have been written in a much more terse manner. There is a very low information density. We don't need wireframes and tangentially related TED talks to understand this stuff. It feels pedantic at best.
- espeed 16y ago
  It says it's takes "a lot of grinding": "Developing these rare or unique perspectives usually takes a deliberate and devoted focus on something. Einstein said, 'It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.' Malcolm Gladwell talks about the 10,000-hour rule. He says, 'Studies suggest that the key to success in any field has nothing to do with talent. It's simply practice, 10,000 hours of it — 20 hours a week for 10 years.'" Think of it this way, if you were omniscient -- meaning you perceive everything, you see everything from every angle -- you would have total perspective. But we're not omniscient -- our perspectives are relatively sparse, but the more associations/connections you make, the the more your perspective grows and you start to see a "bigger picture". You don't develop understanding by learning raw facts -- understanding comes from relating to other things. It's the connections that matter.
  - Synthetase 16y ago
    I will concede that it covers it tangentially before the article starts veers from psychology into questionable neurology. However, the author of the article definitely comes from the camp which mistakes the perspective shift as more important than the hard work. How? Let me count the ways. 1.Sadly, this article succumbs to the myth that Einstein was bad at math. Einstein had fully mastered integral calculus and differential equations by the time he was 15 and achieved full marks for most of his high school subjects. His huge amount of ability allowed him the critical perspective shifts. The author mistakenly thinks dwarves have the vision of giants. 2.The section "Insights from Weak Association" slips into this solipsism with gratuitous flair. I don't believe the "NeuroLeadership Journal" is peer reviewed. However, according to the esteemed, Mark Beeman detecting weak associations may help problem solve. How wonderfully useless. This precedes which states how understanding the problem is "easy" after all. 3. Perspective before focus. This is the title of the third section Sadly, you will not get perspective if you do not focus. Being able to see differently is a product of sweating over it a million different ways. You have it backwards. Tight mental frameworks are the product of focus. Thinking about how you can revolutionize the field before studying it is premature optimization. I believe that I am exceedingly clear both in my arguments and my opinion of the blog post.

35 points by samrat 16y ago

apl 16y ago

> Thoughts are the neural activity in your brain, and they > get stored as physical objects -- the neural connections. > They get stronger as you think more about them and they > can go away too – so we have a scientific explanation for > the adage, “Use it or lose it.” Why do people feel this constant urge to sprinkle their fluff posts with not-even-semi-correct pop-neuroscience? He clearly doesn't know anything about neural plasticity, so why cheapen everything by pretending?

tokenadult 16y ago
What's your recommendation for a scientifically responsible overview of neuroscience for a nonspecialist reader? I think that's what most of the readers of HN might be looking for, and I'd be happy to look up anything you recommend.
- mooftard 16y ago
  I'm not looking for that and I'm a an HN reader. I find it to be off topic. You can pick up any book on neuroscience and it will be better than that shit blog post. If you want something easy to understand listen to this: http://www.radiolab.org/ http://www.radiolab.org/.
- apl 16y ago
  Choice of resources should depend on what you're interested in. Monolithic "neuroscience" remains a myth -- it's a vast field, ranging from cognitive psychology to biophysics. A scientist researching synaptic transmission mechanisms doesn't share much common ground with a guy doing high-level stuff. For what's commonly called cognitive neuroscience (which generally includes memory, cognition, learning and so on, thereby having the most relevance for a nonspecialist reader), Gazzaniga/Ivry/Mangun (2008) remains an absolutely solid introduction that doesn't dumb stuff down while still providing plenty of illustrations and worthwhile patient cases. Covers basic neurobiology in sufficient detail. My recommendation for this kind of stuff. For molecular and general neurobiology, I recommend the first few chapters of Squire's "Fundamental Neuroscience." Kandel's good as well. If you're looking for something more basic, Carlson's "Physiology of Behavior" is a brilliant and rather entertaining book.
espeed 16y ago
That's pretty much a direct quote from MIT neuroscientist Sebastian Seung's TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sebastian_seung.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sebastian_seung.html The idea that neural connections (synapses) grow stronger from learning is well supported... "synapses grow stronger when we're awake as we learn and adapt to an ever-changing environment" (http://www.med.wisc.edu/news-events/news/sleep-tempers-growth-of-synapses/842 http://www.med.wisc.edu/news-events/news/sleep-tempers-growt...) "Most contemporary neuro-scientists agree that learning takes place at the neural switch points – the synapses. Research has shown that experience can change synapses: they can become either stronger or weaker; and this change can persist for a lifetime. Changes in synaptic conduction are without doubt the basis for learning and long-term memory" (http://www.mentalspaceresearch.com/english-articles/expanding-the-neuro-in-nlp http://www.mentalspaceresearch.com/english-articles/expandin...). "One area of change is the synapses, the connections between neurons, which are altered as the brain receives stimuli. “What happens when you’re awake is you produce an overall strengthening of synapses,” Dr. Tononi said. “That’s good, because that’s how you learn.” But that is unsustainable in the long run, because stronger synapses require more energy and material, and there’s a limit to how much of both is available. “It’s as if in the morning you start with a V-6 engine,” he said, “and in the evening you find yourself idling, but you’re running a V-8.” Stronger synapses are also bigger, but the brain cannot grow bigger or denser. “If you strengthen synapses because you learn, soon you’d reach a point where you can’t learn further,” he added. So Dr. Tononi and a colleague, Chiara Cirelli, have hypothesized that during sleep, the synapses weaken. The downscaling is across the board, so that the synapses’ relative strength is maintained. Those that have been used (those involved in learning) stay stronger than those that haven’t." (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/science/29obslee.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/science/29obslee.html?_r=1)
- mooftard 16y ago
  They don't get stronger, they simply get different. Thinking on a past experience, for example, changes the memory of the experience. Thoughts can actually be corrupted by thinking about them. Use it and lose it in just as many cases as the opposite.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

nicolasp 16y ago

Previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2313755 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2313755

efields 16y ago

Practice, practice, practice.

Synthetase 16y ago

I'm not sure why this was front-paged. Twice. I disagree with the premise that a mere mortal can spontaneously boot strap him-self to a higher plane of thinking through a simple change in perspective. Revolutionary breakthroughs are a product of obsession and hard work. Aha moments are built on top of a lot of grinding. The Principia Mathematica stands testimony to this. This post could have been written in a much more terse manner. There is a very low information density. We don't need wireframes and tangentially related TED talks to understand this stuff. It feels pedantic at best.

espeed 16y ago
It says it's takes "a lot of grinding": "Developing these rare or unique perspectives usually takes a deliberate and devoted focus on something. Einstein said, 'It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.' Malcolm Gladwell talks about the 10,000-hour rule. He says, 'Studies suggest that the key to success in any field has nothing to do with talent. It's simply practice, 10,000 hours of it — 20 hours a week for 10 years.'" Think of it this way, if you were omniscient -- meaning you perceive everything, you see everything from every angle -- you would have total perspective. But we're not omniscient -- our perspectives are relatively sparse, but the more associations/connections you make, the the more your perspective grows and you start to see a "bigger picture". You don't develop understanding by learning raw facts -- understanding comes from relating to other things. It's the connections that matter.
- Synthetase 16y ago
  I will concede that it covers it tangentially before the article starts veers from psychology into questionable neurology. However, the author of the article definitely comes from the camp which mistakes the perspective shift as more important than the hard work. How? Let me count the ways. 1.Sadly, this article succumbs to the myth that Einstein was bad at math. Einstein had fully mastered integral calculus and differential equations by the time he was 15 and achieved full marks for most of his high school subjects. His huge amount of ability allowed him the critical perspective shifts. The author mistakenly thinks dwarves have the vision of giants. 2.The section "Insights from Weak Association" slips into this solipsism with gratuitous flair. I don't believe the "NeuroLeadership Journal" is peer reviewed. However, according to the esteemed, Mark Beeman detecting weak associations may help problem solve. How wonderfully useless. This precedes which states how understanding the problem is "easy" after all. 3. Perspective before focus. This is the title of the third section Sadly, you will not get perspective if you do not focus. Being able to see differently is a product of sweating over it a million different ways. You have it backwards. Tight mental frameworks are the product of focus. Thinking about how you can revolutionize the field before studying it is premature optimization. I believe that I am exceedingly clear both in my arguments and my opinion of the blog post.