Charlie Rose

MrGameTheory  12/12/2010 11:31 PM Report

I was very surprised to see that the topic of emotional balance was not brought up in this conversation. Several prestigious scientists have weighed in on the issue of emotional balance since January of 2010. For more information check out www.ofgrandeur.com

c824767  06/08/2010 12:38 AM Report

i think it is hilarious how REMand cannot stay away from this stuff that he purportedly does not like.

it is in direct conflict with the idea that humans do things that have a certain potential to be pleasurable. unless, something has hijacked his dopamine circuits.

other than that, watching this, i am overwhelmed by the stuff that we, as a species, do not know...

Ryszard21  05/27/2010 07:41 PM Report

I, too, love the series, and, as a 'retired' neuroscientist, look forward to watching each episode. I always learn something new and exciting, and I've never been disappointed with the richly informed discussion among the mutually respectful esteemed guests.

I therefore fail to appreciate the groundless, persistent, annoying rantings of REMant and his ilk.

Be that as it may, last night's episode reviewed so many fascinating (to my mind, at least) findings concerning the relationships between mind and mood, brain and emotion, and the various systems (genetic, neural, hormonal), circuits and pathways involved in the behavioural expression of fear and anxiety, I wouldn't know which to nominate as "Most Fascinating." I would gamble, however, that a majority of viewers might well cast a vote in favour of David Anderson's discussion of the role of the master gene, "fruitless," in Drosophila and male vs female differences in aggression. Merci beaucoup, Charlie.

sweaver  05/27/2010 03:29 PM Report

Love this series. I Look forward to each one. Thanks very much.

robdverity  05/27/2010 02:33 PM Report

Consigning the marvels of life to a master designer to date seems merely to lead to dogma disputes on the mechanics of paying homage to her. Which could ultimately lead to its extinction. Which ipso facto says it was not smart (fittest?) enough to survive. A conceit without merit.

REMant  05/27/2010 02:21 PM Report

I haven't, as you know, been watching this, but as I had slated nothing else for this hour, I thought I might see if anything has changed in their approach over the past number of weeks, but alas... Behaviorists, following their Whig reformer predecessors and the good doctors of what I might call irrational religion, separated emotion from intellect so that they good argue the one should be used to condition the other. The Greek philosophers and other rationalists did not believe this. You won't find it in Locke, for instance. It is not enough to argue that this is justified because we are less conscious of so-called emotions. Cognitive therapists use intellect to treat mood swings, reversing the behaviorist methodology. Behaviorists, of course, want to modify behavior they don't like, like Tiger Wood's interest in other women, adolescence, or Palestinians' defense of their homeland. What we should be doing, and what they did centuries ago, in more rational religious venues at least, was to teach people to intellectually control emotions. Freud certainly believed this, and Melanie Klein theorized about the necessity of working through guilt in development, and, of course, that is the way both Stoics and Locke viewed it. But this would be to allow them freedom. Ascribing feelings to animals allows these good-do-bees to treat them like children, as well. A few decades ago, when to most behavior mod seemed shocking (sorry about that), a quite informative book was published about it: Philip J. Hilts, Behavior Mod, Harper, 1974. Too, so-called aggression undoubtedly has quite reasonable evolutionary roots as the ethologists have shown. No one complains about bird songs, but they are not materially different. On the other hand, ethologists have shown that while isolated family groups are benign, extra-territorial "aggression" is introduced in higher order social groupings. Birds merely defend territory; monkeys invade others'. I'm sorry to have to say again that Kandel is a perfect example of how not to draw scientific conclusions, and is as bad as any Social Darwinist.

kfleming  05/27/2010 01:23 PM Report

love the whole science and brain series but continue to be dismayed that the marvelous design of the human body doesn't have a designer but mere genetics that appeared and were developed over generations so the species could survive. The body is too marvelously designed to just adapt and science fails to humbly admit there is a Creator/Designer behind it all. It's all just too marvelous.

Respectfully.

kfleming

NeilMacCallister  05/27/2010 04:20 AM Report

The here-delivered "teachings" which I appreciated:

"It was William James who most separated Psychology from Philosophy, and tied psychology to the physiology of the brain."

"Feelings and emotions are also better separated, noting that the 'emotions' we study experimentally are the observable behaviors that we react with, not necessarily our feelings, which are more difficult to quantify."

"The expressed product of any specific gene can be greatly affected by varying environmental stimuli."

____

ERIC KANDEL: "Our genes are the servants of their environment."

___

I appreciated the panel's allowing that fear, anxiety, and even aggression have a strong correlation to species' survival; and are rightly noted as dysfunctional emotions only when they arise without danger, or beyond necessary, or in a way which incapacitates the individual.

***

On the other hand, my hackles were raised when I heard Dr. Kandel cite only one single example of a stimulator of aggression: The introduction of a person to "a foreigner".

I believe my amygdala picked up the foul scent of a political point trying to be raised in this year's arena of over-run and over-whelmed national and economic boundaries.

But so be it, ..I don't want to lose the wheat for the chaff.

***

Lastly, perhaps it will at sometime be allowed that our emotional reactions may be affected not just by the gene and the environment's influences, but also go back to the creation of our personal Philosophy.

As was discussed here, a soldier at times overcomes his fear by choosing to "act in the face of it" and perform a heroic act.

On the down side, another individual can "philosophize" a personal psychology which includes the act of genocide.

Which is all just to say, perhaps "individual will" really can also play a major role in our individual psychologies, ..not just our genes and our environment.

A trinity, with philosophy once more conjoined with psychology!

Please, I don't want to be a robot, or a windblown scrap of paper.

I will hunker-down and cling to my WILL, ..just like I was one of those tenaciously-gripping drosophilae.

(..and I'll see how well I hold when the wind blows!)

***

Thank you for the program!