Charlie Rose

harveyschneider  08/28/2010 08:55 AM Report

I agree with lindacox of Grt Brit. I by chance caught the Jan 19th 2010 show rebroadcast on Bloomberg Aug 28, in Israel. I so enjoyed how such complicated topics were discussed in understandable English, especially by Profs. Bergmann and Fischbach. The warmth, humour and mutual respect around the table was heartwarming. Also a rarity: the moderator, one Charlie Rose, did not interrupt, did not interject to show off his knowledge, did not interfere. One forgot he was there. This is very untypical of most talking head shows, where everyone talks at once, including the host, so you hear no one, understand nothing and come away with a headache. Congratulations on a superb show.

PineDale  08/27/2010 01:27 AM Report

But the point that I also need to make is that Dr. Pelphrey failed to explain the 2nd graph with the 8 measures- 1st he said the top & bottom were Bio vs non-bio, then when he got to the bottom he said the Red & blue were bio vs non-bio. It is exactly this kind of thing that I would notice and a neurotypical would not, in fact the NT would insist that this did not happen (and they would be wrong)- exactly this kind of thing has happened to me in classes, so I would ask them to clarify, but they couldnt understand my question and accused me of rudeness. To a neurotypical the feelings and hierarchy of the lecturer are the most important, much more important than accuracy and fact. Doesn't this affect science? Of course it does; it's why progress is so slow. We have always been here. We break rules, we criticize, we ask challenging questions, we innovate and create. We are more honest, less manipulative, less vain, more intelligent, more accurate and thorough BY NEUROTYPICALS' OWN STANDARDS.

PineDale  08/27/2010 01:19 AM Report

I just saw the Autism episode. As a woman with Aspergers who finally diagnosed herself at age 41, I can assure you that 1) IT IS NOT JUST CHILDREN who are on the autism spectrum- the researchers never want to consider the adults and all the undiagnosed or late-diagnosed adults, and 2) having undiagnosed autism - and the social price is MUCH higher for women - cost me everything. It cost me my whole life and all hope. There are many of us out here, and we have paid a heavy price.

c824767  06/07/2010 12:05 AM Report

no we will not understand everything just because we understand the brain. the secrets of the universe and what will happen after we die are manifold i am sure and ununlockable by definition. poor remant swore to stop watching 2 episodes ago but cannot stay away

lindacox  04/05/2010 01:16 AM Report

Up early in Spain and came across Charlie Rose's programme on The Brain - fabulous!!! It is SO FANTASTIC to find a stimulating programme with such knowledgeable contributors!!! It felt a real privilege to sit at the feet of such teachers! Thank you Charlie - delighted I have discovered you this morning! It will help keep me sane til we return home to the UK! Lyn Cox

Bobby_Rose  03/19/2010 06:44 PM Report

I agree with the comments below.

The opinions expressed on the show are derived from findings from a limited experimental base.

Those findings may be reliable (but not infallible) in the context of brain component functioning, but are highly suspect when used to define the social behavior of individual people, or of each and every human society, or to humanity at large. Social context is important.

I do not believe that we yet know much about what is required to go about controllably manipulating a single gene in utero or in a (post partum) individual.

vauben  02/22/2010 07:37 PM Report

ShalomFreedman...I think a song should be made to go with that last line.

"What area of the brain lights up... when we are hummmmmble?"

What area of the heart... beats strongest... when our stomachs...rummmmmble...

Will our fingers tingle...as we mingle... at the watering hole...oh...feed my soul...

ShalomFreedman  01/20/2010 04:20 PM Report

In discussions like these often the most important points are made are incidental ones , ones which researchers in the field may take for granted but which laymen do not necessarily know. Consider the point about autistic children not looking in the eyes of others. Or another point their not being able to understand that others may be thinking about completely different matters from what they are. Again these points may be obvious to researchers in the field but they bring new understanding to the layman. Now I understand this series of programs as public education, education for the wider community. They are not specialist discussions in which new findings are to emerge. I believe they do the job they are intended to do. Or at least for me they do. I have learned certain things from each of the programs.

I would only make one slightly critical remark here. The way Erik Kandel speaks it is as if we will by understanding brain- activity understand 'everything'. In fact most of what we know about social relations has nothing whatsoever to do with brain- research. There are after all the Social Sciences. I understand the need of researchers in most areas to find the key to everything in their own research but actually the true perspective is understanding that one's own area, however complicated and difficult, is not going to be the key to explaining everything.

What area of the brain lights up when we are 'humble'?

REMant  01/20/2010 11:12 AM Report

Humans are hardly the only, and far from the most, "social" species. And it has to be understood that whether or to what extent human beings can be considered to constitute a social organism rather than individuals is far from certain. We hardly know what should be considered social, despite much good work by ethnologists and ethologists. Sociologists have been at odds about it so much in the past century or so of their existence, that it has probably been a major factor in the decline of their discipline. But people not studying social behavior for very long?? You must be kidding.

It is unknown whether autism has anything at all to do with social behavior, except to point out what many people, probably wrongly, think it does. This is a serious bias, not unlike the kind of stupidity that occurred re lobotomies. Let's be perfectly clear about this; we've just heard someone on this program say he was looking forward to being able to surgically alter, or breed people to preconceived notions of what they ought to be. Is that not what some Nazi doctors had in mind? It is highly probable that different sorts of societies are composed of quite different sorts of individuals, since this has been consistently observed from the Greeks to the Council of Nicaea, to Montesquieu, to Comte. In any case what difference does it make really if learning is done over generations by so-called biological changes, or through cultural accretion and learning, except to make use of one to argue against the other? Locke argued mightily against innate ideas to fight against tyranny (altho I'm certain he believed in them in nature, and certainly in concepts). His opponent Filmer argued for them for against the tyranny of the masses. But here we have ppl arguing for them in order to create a more perfect world.

And imitation unique to humans?? What about imprinting in geese? What about the use of tools by crows, monkeys, etc? Sympathy was understood quite well by Robert Burns ("O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us, To see oursels as others see us!") and Adam Smith (his Theory of Moral Sentiments is based on it).

Localisation was hypothesized well before the first brain stimulation experiments were done, and has always been the dominant hypothesis, with only a few dissenters like D.O. Hebb and Kurt Goldstein.

Aggression is of all sorts of different types, as any ethologist or historian will tell you. It is certainly not what your average "liberal" thinks it is.

A fine example of how not to draw conclusions. Indeed it is an abuse of science. The very first thing I was taught in experimental psychology was how to write a report of an investigation and draw the proper conclusions, and I was taught it again for my doctoral dissertation. This is an absolutely awful presentation, which I think will do far more harm than good, if, indeed anyone is watching it, and I certainly hope not. I really will not give it any more time.