Subscribe via RSS Feed

Author Page for Sam McDougle

SAMUEL D. MCDOUGLE (Contributor, Author of re:COGNITION) is a musician and a lab rat. He splits this time between behavioral neuroscience research at the University of Pennsylvania, playing fiddle in an Appalachian string-band, and drumming in an indie rock trio. Sam holds a degree in Neuroscience and Behavior from Vassar College, where he focused his studies on cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary psychology while enthusiastically dabbling in philosophy. He currently researches in Dr. Javier Medina’s lab at UPenn investigating the neural basis of motor learning– specifically learned reflex timing– using tools from neuropsychology, in vivo neurophysiology and computational neuroscience. Sam’s musical credits include performances with his band, The Powder Kegs, at various prominent festivals and clubs in the US (including a 2007 performance reaching millions of viewers worldwide on NPR’s A Prairie Home Companion), two acclaimed full length albums, and an EP. He plays fiddle with folk artists including Adrienne Young, Alex Caton, and in his Appalachian string-band The Philadelphia Colonels. Sam was born and raised in New York City and now happily resides in Philadelphia where he has no pets, no children, and 6 different stringed instruments (and counting). He can be reached for questions, comments, criticism, and praise at sam@thebeautifulbrain.com.

rss feed

Bowerbird Architecture

[ 0 ] January 24, 2012

The New York Times recently covered some cool new research that shows that Australia’s Great Bowerbirds use techniques of illusion and perspective to make their mate-attracting constructions sexier. The researches explain:

Male great bowerbirds actively maintain size-distance gradients of objects on their bower courts that create forced-perspective illusions for females viewing their displays from within the bower avenue.

Bowerbird aesthetics offer an interesting angle on evolution and art itself — there are a variety of theories about the biology of art, which we explore here at The Beautiful Brain.  Some of the most striking theories are reductionist views: perhaps art sprung directly from sexual selection – the need to impress our mates – and it’s variety, constant change, and centrality to human life should be viewed through an evolutionary lens.  It’s an interesting thought, and certainly gets some support from the bowerbird arts collective.

Hooray For NMDA!

[ 0 ] January 5, 2012

NMDA receptors are neurological celebrities. They’ve been implicated in the most basic, neccasary forms of learning and synaptic plasticity, highlighted by their ability to activate only when certain conditions are met in both “pre” and “post” synaptic neurons.

The now-old neuroscience adage “those that fire together, wire together,” is a fundamental truism primarily because of the work of NMDARs.  So it isn’t surprising that a recent paper in Neuron, by Joe Tsien et al, argues that NMDA receptors play a vital role in habit formation.  Check out the video abstract above for more.

Who’s In Charge?

[ 0 ] November 30, 2011

“Free Will” is a tough topic in cognitive science.  The neuroscience research that goes into answering questions of agency and free will is complicated and can be interpreted in so many ways.

Legendary cognitive scientist, Michael Gazzaniga, argues in his new book “Who’s In Charge,” that we’re looking in the wrong place.

Surely our behaviors are the results of physical processes in the brain, and thus can, every one, ultimately be linked to a neurological root.  However, the shape and architecture of such “roots” is shaped by our world, and in the case of personal responsibility and ownership of actions, they’re shaped by our social world.  Gazzaniga believes we’re talking about free will the wrong way – ownership of our actions happens in our interactions with others, and is affected by those interactions.  Should be an interesting read.

The Evolution of Chalkboard Torture

[ 5 ] October 18, 2011

On the universal terribleness of fingernails scratching a chalkboard.

Having grown up in New York City in the mid-nineties, I was spareth’d the rod of classroom corporal punishment.  Wrist slapping, spankings, canings – these were methods of discipline I saw in movies and read about in books, often inflicted on slight, well-meaning cockney schoolboys.  But when my old French teacher, Madame G, launched her fingernails-on-the-chalkboard assault, French class became third-period waterboarding.  Far worse than the occasional verbal scolding, “time out,” or shameful walk to the principal’s office, there was something to be said for the gripping discomfort caused by the hellish timbre of keratin on slate.

Loud, high-pitched noises are good at cutting through the low rumble of background noise – that’s why our alarms aren’t baselines, violins play lead, and it’s impossible to ignore the aspirant opera singer among the 2 a.m. karaoke dregs.  But the sound of fingernails on the chalkboard isn’t your run-of-the-mill bothersome high-pitched noise. It’s unique in its cross-culture universality, an annoyance that only the most masochistic of us enjoy hearing, and only the most malicious enjoy producing.  Why is it that so?  One theory says it has something to do with the distress calls of chimpanzees.

Not all sounds are created equal – our brains have evolved to attribute special significance to certain ones.  For instance, we all experience a particularly strong emotional response to the sound of a crying baby. The sound arouses our instinct to care for the young, telling us that a helpless little whelp needs something, and we can’t help but empathize (unless you’re on a bus and it’s not yours).  The evolutionary roots of this response are clear: If humans innately treated a baby’s cry as they did, say, a bird’s chirp, our species, having left its babies unattended and undernourished, surely wouldn’t have survived long enough to be the successful, world-raping genius race it has become.

In addition to crying, screaming and yelling have a special place too.  They communicate distress – someone needs help, someone is angry, or danger is close by.  Cries, screams, and yells aren’t elements of language, they’re more basic, they’re unlearned;  you are born crying and screaming, and you never forget how to.  Such unlearned shouts primarily exist to communicate a simple though important message (i.e. “danger!”) and trigger an appropriate emotional response in the listener (i.e. “fear”).  They’re nature’s expletives.

Most vertebrates have their own expletives, like when your neighbor’s pit bull barks “f*** you intruder!” at you while you innocently trot by his fenced yard, or when your surly cat meows “feed me you lazy failure!” while you watch the Weather Channel in your underpants.  Intriguingly, we are able to sense the emotions of other animals when they exclaim – our innate response to human cries of pain and threatening screams also generalizes to other species.  We obviously didn’t adapt to understand when gerbils are frightened, but we know it when we hear it.

So, with all that in mind, could the enigmatically universal response to the sound of fingernails on the chalkboard have something to do with our innate response to distressed yells?  Maybe.  Randolph Blake, a neuroscientist at Vanderbilt University has showed that the nail-on-chalkboard sound is remarkably similar acoustically to the distress calls of our cousins, the chimpanzees.  According to Blake, we cringe at chalkboard torture because ancient parts of our brains think a chimpanzee is screaming.

But why would we fear a chimpanzee’s scream?  Well, 6.5 million years ago we diverged from the chimps, and during the vast majority of that time we evolved alongside them in the East African savannah.  Though chimps mainly stuck to the trees while human ancestors moved to the ground, they shared predators (lions, cheetahs, big birds of prey, etc). Chimps, along with other apes and several species of monkey, have notoriously loud distress calls.  When a chimp sees danger – say, a skulking lion – she lets out a piercing high-pitched screech, like a knife through the jungle.  These screeches would surely have been heard by our ancestors, and, because we don’t speak chimp, it would take generations of natural selection for humans to develop an innate fear-response to the sound and, ultimately, for that response to generalize to similar sounds, like the ones that come out of French teachers’ nails scraping chalkboards.  Et Voilà – the chalkboard scratch is uniquely abhorrent because it mimics the once-familiar distress call of a threatened chimp neighbor, an auditory relic of our perilous evolutionary past.

A fair objection to the tidy little story above is that humans could merely learn, through experience, that when chimps scream, trouble is about.  What evidence do we have that it is an innate response rather than a learned one?  Well, not much.  But here’s a brief experiment -  take a listen to this chimp distress call. Goosebumps? Cringing?  Wet your pants?  I would venture a guess that you’ve never heard a chimp distress call until now, and I would also guess you reacted to it with fear and surprise.  No, there isn’t a lion near you (though you should check), but something in your viscera is telling you this sound bodes badly.

It’s generally impossible to prove that a modern human eccentricity is the result of an ancient adaptation because we can’t go back in time, but if a theory makes sense it should be entertained.  It’s funny to think that my French teacher may have been unknowingly mimicking a chimpanzee when she tortured us with the chalkboard maneuver.  I should be thankful she didn’t take the imitation a step further and throw her feces at me.

Play

REVIEW: The Tree of Life

[ 1 ] August 24, 2011

Terrence Malick’s new film The Tree Of Life is not just great, it’s important.

While it is not rare that a film is made with heavy philosophical aims, it isn’t common either.  Of the films that do address big questions, very few use scientific discoveries to frame their stance, barring the eccentric fancies of science fiction.

Terrence Malick’s new film The Tree of Life alludes to ideas about evolution, the origin of life, and the big bang not as footnotes or metaphors for the human experience, but as vital context for it – the closest answers to the age-old question, “What The Hell Am I Doing Here?”

Art has, and will likely always be primarily concerned with the human experience.  Romeo and Juliet, for instance, grapples with the opposing forces of love and tribal allegiance, Pride and Prejudice explores the psychological pressures of social propriety, Beethoven’s 3rd is a monument to the intensity and complexity of heroism, and the Velvet Underground’s “Heroin” mimics the leering psychosis of addiction.  A vague, cursory list like this could go on forever, but needless to say, great works of art don’t just entertain, they cut to the core of humanness.

Artistic expression is an amazing tool for looking at the “whats” and “hows” of humanity – What makes us tick?  How do we cope?  In many cases, one can learn more about psychology by reading literature than they can by reading textbooks.  But what about the “why” questions?  Can art answer those?  Why do we tick? Why do we cope?

Until the most recent couple of centuries, this question, in my view, had an unsatisfying answer – God.  Religion, it seemed, was the only mode of thought that dealt with such puzzles.  Even art often relied on religious imagery to invoke grand ideas. But religion’s lack of any tangible evidence and its cross-cultural incongruities make it a poor tool for reaching a logical answer to any of the “whys.”  Cue the Enlightenment.

The rapid pace of technological advancement and the wide dissemination of the scientific method quickly gave us some pretty good answers.  By Darwin’s time, we could know why we were here in relation to other animals, by Einstein and Hubble’s time we had a good theory concerning the origin of the universe (and saw the invention and flourishing of film), and by the 1950’s, Miller and Urey had given us a front row seat to the origin of life.  Three of life’s biggest “why” questions were much closer to an answer (if not already at one) than they had ever been in the history of human knowledge – Why is the universe here, why is life here, why are people here.

It is these same three questions that Malick confronts in the crucial, celestial segment near the beginning of The Tree of Life.  Before launching into the heart of the film that is a stark, beautifully rendered portrait of childhood set in 1950’s Texas, Malick takes us through the birth of the universe, the birth of life, and the birth of psychologically complex animals.  These scenes bounce from placidity to violence, colorfully depicting nature’s entropic path of change and destruction, and the appearance of cosmological and biological form.  The sequence concludes with portraits of living, feeling creatures on earth (dinosaurs), and hints at their burgeoning minds.  Psychological complexity soon becomes the center of the film (as it is the center of myriad works of art), and, for the young human protagonist, Jack, the why questions come flooding in.  Jack is in a constant state of puzzlement – Why do I feel jealousy?  Why are my parents the way they are? Why do I hate?  Why do I love?  I won’t go too far trying to explain the progression of the film in words.  There are few words in the film itself – the story is primarily told, like other Malick projects, in images and sounds.

While so many other films investigate the proximate causes of our psychological states – “perhaps Jack is jealous because he envies his brother’s stoicism,” and “his parents are who they are because their parents were like this and that” – The Tree of Life doesn’t bother with proximate causes.  Malick’s concerned with ultimate causes. He presents you with the scenes, images, and sounds of a child’s maturation and loss of innocence, you empathize with him and feel his feelings, but you are left not to try and guess why he feels the way he does, but to try and know why.

After witnessing the origin of everything, the viewer has been primed by a sequence that no other modern piece of art before the 1950s could have shown – we didn’t have any good theory on the origin of life yet – and is left to watch a film about a small family of humans not in the context of a town, decade, or country, but in the context of the history of the universe.  I couldn’t help but think – Jack is ultimately the way he is because he, like I, is a product of the natural forces of the universe.

Evolution has shaped humans as the storms of primordial earth shaped its clay, and even with the added caveat of natural selection, we are filled with imperfections, contradictions, and that kludgy machine, the brain, that can only do the best it can to make sense of it all, and usually fails in doing so.  This may not be a satisfying answer to the big questions we have about ourselves, but it certainly puts things in perspective.  Our own minds will always be the center of our personal worlds – we can’t help it – but now, because of science, we are starting to know why our minds behave the way they do.  Science is telling us who we are:  We aren’t beholden to supernatural beings, and have no purpose or place – we are a small branch on the Tree of Life, pushed and pulled by nature’s unyielding winds.

New Doc: “Project Nim”

[ 0 ] July 23, 2011

For those who haven’t seen the 2008 documentary “Man On Wire,” which is about a record-breaking feat of high altitude tightrope walking, I “highly” recommend it (sorry, that was awful).  Director James Marsh’s new documentary, “Project Nim,” is an in-depth look at one of the most educational, tragic, monumental, flawed studies in the history of modern psychology research. In the 1970s, an experimental chimp subject, Nim Chimpsky, was reared and taught as if he was human, and the researchers hypothesized that he would be able to learn human language (through signing).

While Nim learned many signs, the results were cloudy, and researchers spent years analyzing his behavior to see what was really going on.  His moniker came from a play on “Noam Chomsky,” who argued that humans were specifically wired for language and other apes were not.  Though the results of the Nim Chimpsky study were heavily disputed, and, ultimately, found to be flawed, questions about the origin of language and the cognitive abilities of our primate cousins remain unanswered.

Check out “Project Nim” for a nicely made look at this multi-layered story of the crossroads between curiosity, intellectual arrogance,  scientific discovery, and self-discovery.

Page 1 of 1012345678910

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next