Charlie Rose

ANDREW123  11/26/2011 06:46 PM Report

Correction: "However HE shows...."

ANDREW123  11/26/2011 06:44 PM Report

I think Eric Kandel is wonderful. However, who shows uncharacteristic hubris when he states that the misunderstanding between humane and scientific thinkers is unidirectional. There is no good reason to assume that if one shows scientific aptitude, then, necessarily, one shows exegetical acumen (the interpretive acumen of the humanist). It isn't at all obvious that even the most brilliant scientist, could have made comparable contributions to 'humane wisdom' had they only deigned to devote their lives to, say, reading Shakespeare. In another segment of this series, Kandel enunciates the truism that there are 'multiple intelligences'; that is, that proficiency in one area is almost invariably 'complemented' by relative deficiency in some other area. I, myself, am not a 'humanist' (I mean someone working in the humanities) but I think science-directed skepticism is well-motivated when targeting the apparently monopolistic truth-claims of science (e.g., the implicit or explicit claim that only scientific 'truth' is meaningful or worth pursuing or worthy of the name 'truth'). Adept readers of Shakespeare seek to uncover certain 'immutable truths' of the human situation made clear to us in great works of art. This is obviously a different sort of truth than that pursued by scientific researchers. The hard-headed science assumes with Mr. Kandel that the only prerequisite of 'reading Shakespeare' is literacy. Hence the skepticism.

Mindfreak  10/21/2010 09:52 AM Report

From MINDfreak:

Good to hear that old "trolley dilemma" again - but this is the first time I noticed that it ISN'T a dilemma: like most, it's actually a TRI-lemma! Option 3: you jump off the bridge yourself - to save 5 people (whom you don't even know), just because of the numbers. I suppose most honest people would say NO...

robdverity  10/04/2010 11:07 PM Report

A culture as sick as ours treats young people with PTSD, when the real sickos are the MI oligarches, their lobbyists and the venal congressional and govt whores that let them buy preemptive wars - and send them to mindless conflict. Treating wounded after-the-fact would not be needed if we preemptively removed the root cause of our incessant warring. The psychos among us are not in combat. They're in board rooms and govt.

Vazrakapars  10/04/2010 04:29 PM Report

Mr Rose

Some will believe in god while other shall not.

Prayer,Pain,suffering,Perception.

lollylou  10/03/2010 01:13 AM Report

While watching this program, I kept thinking of the emotional-perceptual glitch that I have experienced in relating to a combat veteran diagnosed with PTSD. Joshua Green summed the dilemma up precisely when stating that a purely economist approach would be difficult in managing the personal aspects of one's life. It is difficult for others (such as wives & children), to understand that a lack of emotional consideration, or even complete disregard exhibited in behaviors, is not intended to be hurtful - and that possible emotional impact may not even be perceived, therefore not considered. Imagine the frustration that would be caused in other people, if you could not integrate emotional signals into the many interpersonal decisions you must make that ultimately define all your behaviors. How would you know where you went wrong, when an unknown lack of emotional consideration resulted in frustration and anger directed at you in retaliation from others? I've seen this played out over & over.

In my opinion, this is an extremely critical area of research, considering the number of veterans involved, compounded by the number of family members, and others they are attempting to interact with. I would be interested to know if the brain scans of veterans diagnosed with PTSD resembled in subtle, or not so subtle form, the deficits described in prefrontal cortex, or amygdala - and whether a highly motivated group of individuals who are confused by their own mental state could compensate with some means of treatment to lead a life of less frustration. This seems to me, much more practical than studying incarcerated psychopaths. I would think that being a combat veteran may be very similar in some way, to having a rod put through the part of your brain that tempers utilitarian considerations with emotional factors.

Perhaps more veterans would seek or benefit from counseling if there was a better understanding of HOW to manage personal interactions with the emotion of a poet once you have taught your system to perceive only as an economist. As Joshua Green said, "So we have to understand ourselves to use our minds better." Shouldn't we be trying to understand this population first? It seems there is potential here, great research talent, & great need.

Thank you, Charlie Rose & all involved, for such an informative series of shows.

AntonioFR  10/02/2010 05:58 PM Report

Again and again, congratulations for this fantastic series. TV at some of its best.

furtive  10/02/2010 05:21 AM Report

Loved this episode! Watched it 2x on different pbs stations, taking copious notes!!!

i know someone who simply has so much self-doubt he cannot make a decision timely, which leaves everyone hanging in the balance, with plans and schedules in limbo (similar to the angst of a Woody Allen character) Every decision appears tortured, with an ulterior motive, trying to figure out a way to be sneaky.

he has confessed he knows something is wrong and just wants "peace". He appears so emotionally fragile like an eggshell, and believes he is fighting depression, perpetually thinking bad thoughts, which is how he described it.

his elderly father has progressive parkinsons, and i suggested that his dopamine levels should be tested.

is there a test available?

he is struggling with serotine meds but says he feels no different.

his cognitive processes also appear to be distorted and non-sequential. he relies on others to complete his work product and signs his name. he gives the impression he flails and feels incomplete.

For example, it NEVER OCCURRED TO HIM that there are personal consequences to immoral behavior/acting out. (The Golden Rule) until it is pointed out. It is not even in his repetoire! A tragedy waiting to happen.

Added to the fact that he compulsively works-out daily, is afraid to eat anything "fun", has serious envy issues, is drawn to superficial ingenue seductive women for his desire to feel "needed" (narcissistic supply) (he is married ), and does not appear to COMPREHEND the concept of empathy, my armchair diagnosis is a Narcissistic/Borderline combination personality disorder.

So, is it damage to, or the lack of integration of the orbital prefrontal cortex with the amygdala (reduced dopamine) that is a cause of personality disorders?

After not seeing this fellow in 33 years, he has not changed. He has to be carefully taught about emotional connections. He simply never acquired the competence to put himself in another's position or imagine how they feel.

Would love for him to see this video, but he would not consider my recommendation. he confessed more than he wanted to znd has shut the door.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/02/2010 03:33 AM Report

The following needs clarification in my mind:

ERIC KANDEL: So if for example you brought a patient into the courtroom and you showed that he had lost his orbitofrontal cortex, there is no question you would feel

differently about his consciously doing something under his own control than if he had a normal brain.

TONY MOVSHON: I actually was asked -- a journalist called ask asked me a question about this. So one of the things we know about brain development is that the frontal cortex is the last part the brain to be fully mature. And so in adolescence the frontal cortex is known to be immature.

And so this journalist called me up and said "Do you believe that because the frontal cortex develops late that teenagers should not be responsible for their actions because they have improperly developed frontal cortex?"

To which my response was, are you out of your mind? They’re

teenagers. What do you need to know about the frontal cortex?

The discourse has moved from the domain that we all understand, which is that adolescents do adolescent things, into this sort of dressed-up version of neuroscience, which I think does not serve our society or our community well.

------------------

So then what is dressed-up neuroscience? Is neuroscience naked now? Should teenagers be tried as adults? How much of the orbitofrontal cortex do teenagers lack?

GREAT SHOW! Thank you.

paperless  10/02/2010 02:25 AM Report

Decision making, you exclude the posiblity that some people do not see the images as moving. They are stationary,and just flickering. 101011010.

SkyLarkJ  10/01/2010 03:55 PM Report

Decision Making, this episode could not have come at more perfect time in my young 21 year old life.

barbarageorge  10/01/2010 02:18 PM Report

Such a wonderful series, and all the information on neuroscience and the researchers delving into "brain" structures and physiology in order to understand the mechanisms of decision making is so "charging". However, I wonder what good that does for any of us in the position of having to make difficult decisions with our fractional parlimentary minds? Currently there are several research studies with real people which link neuroscience, emotions and decision making, and yet I have not seen any hints of these with the scientists presenting. Check out Richard Davidson at U of Wisconsin, Madison; Cliff Saran, U of Calif at Davis, Mind and Brain Center; the Shamatha Project; B. Alan Wallace, Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies. They used lines instead of dots, and found very interesting results. There are some practical ways already out there with which to assist and mature decision making. Thanks for a great series.

REMant  10/01/2010 02:01 PM Report

Nazi obsessions aside, this discussion was deficient for many, many reasons. Some of them: the obvious idea that feelings are good and reason bad; the use of simple-minded experiments instead of natural observation; the belief that ppl are all (genetically) the same; that prediction is all there is to ethics; that at bottom it is all a matter of behavioral rewards and punishments; the absence of cognitive psychology. The question in economics is not, nor never has been, how ppl make decisionsm tho profs will often talk like it, but what obtains in the long run, if necessary over many generations. It represents what ppl have done to survive and suggests therefore what they need to do to survive. The ppl on this program would, it appears, turn that around and make an ought an is, as if brain structures simply emanated, and were of course naturally good and the question of survival some machination of the devil. A better name for behavioral economics would be marketing psychology. BTW, they give out posthumous Medals of Honor to soldiers who sacrifice themselves to save others, so the idea is not unknown. The difference is when you are asking someone else to make that decision for another. That is obviously a quite different question from asking ppl which would be "better" killing 5 ppl or just one, altho it seems Bentham had trouble understanding that. As for myself I'd be inclined to push Kandel onto the track. You have to treat children as adults or they will not become adults, because the brain doesn't simply develop by itself. All of these folks would be better off IMHO to approach this stuff comparatively and historically, and certainly not try to hide behind that idiot C P Snow.