3 ms·
> Gives another dimension to being 'in tune' with someone. Love this. > I think the clinical shift to focus on 'the individual' instead of the ensemble has ov
by calepayson 2y ago
> Gives another dimension to being 'in tune' with someone.
Love this.
> I think the clinical shift to focus on 'the individual' instead of the ensemble has overlooked the importance of inter-brain synchronisation
My sense is this is also the case for our cultural story of neuroscience. We can run massive analysis of the brain and what brain regions or neurons or transmitters are being used/activated and it all boils down to something we can't conceptualize. Even the principal components seem to be too complex for us to grock.
With this barrage of complexity I feel like we have a (bad but understandable) habit of reducing to the individual. We talk about the grandmother neuron or what region x is responsible for. We harp on the cog sci of individuals and we run experiments where we try to isolate them for "confounding factors" (other people).
I keep coming back to evolutionary theory as the middle ground between this over and under simplification of cognition.
- dleeftink 2y agoI cannot find the source right now, but the past 20 years has seen a marked shift from individual to ensemble brain imaging, as individual brain responses (and by extension our imaging data) do not fully reflect or capture our natural state that is often far less compartmentalised. It took some advocacy for the field to move towards multi-brain imaging, not the least due to its technical challenges. On a deeper level, I also think the prior discrepency stems from how we perceive the world as individuals rather than a collective, our research methods implicitly reflecting this bias. In regards to synchronisation, you might find the following interesting: "Brain Waves Synchronize when People Interact" [0]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-waves-synchronize-when-people-interact/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-waves-synch...