CREATIVE PEOPLE HAVE BETTER-CONNECTED BRAINS
Seemingly countless self-help books and seminars tell you to tap into the right side of your brain to stimulate creativity. But forget the “right-brain” myth -- a new study suggests it’s how well the two brain hemispheres communicate that sets highly creative people apart.
For the study, statisticians David Dunson of Duke University and Daniele Durante of the University of Padova analyzed the network of white matter connections among 68 separate brain regions in healthy college-age volunteers.
The brain’s white matter lies underneath the outer grey matter. It is composed of bundles of wires, or axons, which connect billions of neurons and carry electrical signals between them.
A team led by neuroscientist Rex Jung of the University of New Mexico collected the data using an MRI technique called diffusion tensor imaging, which allows researchers to peer through the skull of a living person and trace the paths of all the axons by following the movement of water along them. Computers then comb through each of the 1-gigabyte scans and convert them to three-dimensional maps -- wiring diagrams of the brain.
Source and further reading
https://today.duke.edu/2017/02/creative-people-have-better-connected-brains
Journal article
http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ba/1479179031
Image: an MRI technique called diffusion tensor imaging traces the bundles of nerve fibers that carry electrical signals between different areas of the brain.
Image by Thomas Schultz, Wikimedia Commons
#neuroscience #brain #creativity #whitematter #frontalcortex
I think that using the qualifier better isn't wise, it gives an inappropriate value to the creativity in a society where we need a whole range of skills....
ReplyDeleteI disagree.
ReplyDeleteCorina Marinescu Ok, let me refine my sentence. Better implies a comparison, it creates levels among individual brains which is a wrong (unwise) approach, History shown us how theories of differentiation like the eugenism are harmful. I would prefer the use of more connected (between the 2 hemispheres) or more complex...
ReplyDeleteLove this!
ReplyDeleteI know what "better" implies Bertrand Nelson.
ReplyDeleteI still disagree with what you said.
Corina Marinescu There's no doubt that you know what better implies, but it shocked me to see this word in the title of a scientific paper because of my personal knowledge of the practice of research on the human, in France and similarly in other developed countries:
ReplyDeleteAt least 'better' is a qualifier that researchers use with caution and here's why. I worked as a (freelance) Technical Director during about 15 years in a brain research lab of the CNRS (French Public Research Centre) using EEG (electroencephalography) then MEG (magneto-encephalography).
The Research Director was a member of the Ethical Commission, ordered by the Government, which worked in the early 90's to define the ethical limits of the research on the humans, because of the many breakthroughs that scientists were seeing in their domains at that time because some were feared of going too far (remember the race to the human cloning in the 90's...). They felt the need for defining boundaries in the research affecting the humans.
With these self-applied rules, I'm certain that, even if in their hearts they think that the use of the qualifier 'better' for measuring the brains gives more indications, they always forbid themselves of using such 'comparisons' in their publications, because of the ethics..
Bertrand Nelson If the only outcome of the connectivity is increased creativity, then it is objectively better. IE more creativity, less nothing. Your comment implies creativity decreases some other ability, which I don't think is true.
ReplyDeleteJussi Lahtinen For a personal and strictly private thinking, you're right but for a published science paper (thus public) it's very unusual to describe results in that way.
ReplyDeleteNotice that I've placed myself as an observer, with a 3rd person view: in no way do I defend my personal opinion, which is still undisclosed in this thread, and I don't want to feed a contradictory debate with you or another person in this comment thread, I only emphasize on some rules broken by the authors, rules concerning the #bioethics that scientists have chosen to enforce themselves for many decades now.
Like in a precedent reply to Corina, I don't deny any quality to creativity, my only thinking was just a questioning about what gives researchers the right to decide that in this case (more creativity), or for whatever case, we can say that the brain is better connected, i.e. better than what? To avoid such slippery considerations about the definition of brain configurations, many countries have created (Bio-)Ethical Committees to define rules applied to future research, the use of the findings and particularly legal and moral visions of what are good practices for anything related to human biology (a man isn't a machine, research on human cloning for now is premature, etc.), such as the French one I've described in a previous comment (since the first commission gathered in the early 90's in which my Research Director was involved, I've heard of refinements on the initial report).
My professional experience tells me that scientists are usually reluctant to use such qualifier, that beside some people could misinterpret and that History shows us that if mixed with politics, it has already gone too far e.g. with the eugenics of the 30's.
That said, in their minds, the same scientists can think that it's better but they keep this private... Just browse other publications about research on human, it'll be hard to find the use of better in the titles...
P.S.: Hoping that my English is good enough to enlighten my thinking, I'm a French national and a bad translation may involve misunderstanding, I wish you a good night. It's past 2 AM in Paris...
Bertrand Nelson
ReplyDeleteI don't think you understood my point. If my given premises hold, then it is not value judgment or comparison to any other qualities. It is merely analogous statement to that lower serum LDL value is better, than higher LDL value. No ethics involved.
Edit: For the record, the word "better" is not avoided in any way.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=better
Edit2: The study authors did not use word "better" in the title or in the abstract.
Jussi Lahtinen Well, it's very late for me, almost 4 AM in Paris and I'll come back later, but I can say now that the title of the paper is CREATIVE PEOPLE HAVE BETTER-CONNECTED BRAINS, this is the '*better*-connected' that I'm talking about
ReplyDeleteAbout the bioethics, my references come from France but the same applies to a lot of advanced countries. If I search French sources with the keywords bioethics and 'social categorization' (in French), I find a lot of philosophical considerations (e.g.. Kant is cited) which apply to the Ethical Committee works and if you read well, they give strength to my argumentation... I was involved in the brain research during more than a decade and in this thread I never wanted to stand on a personal belief, I repeat that this is at least a French (and more largely European) way of thinking, for scientists, and I don't know which is your country of reference, but it is applied abroad.
When I'll find English sources, I submit them to you. I shut down my PC and I'll read your sources tomorrow.
Have a good night.
Bertrand Nelson
ReplyDeleteNo, the paper title is "Bayesian Inference and Testing of Group Differences in Brain Networks". You are referring to the news site, which made up their own title. And again this is not question of ethics, look up my earlier reply.
Jussi Lahtinen A straightforward analysis of the brain, let's say about the size of the brain... led the scientists of the previous centuries to declare that women are less intelligent than men. The scientific results seemed coherent but now we declare them definitely non-ethical. I don't know what is your educational and professional background but in all my replies, I repeat that scientists choose to apply ethical rules. No more...
ReplyDeleteThe paper about the 'Bayesian inference...' is effectively the scientific paper, purely based on the mathematical method of measurement, it gives a lot of references, sadly they lead for the most toward paid web sites (it's usual in research) to read the content. But I'm pretty sure that somewhere, there is a reference.
Meanwhile, just Google this:
ethics in comparison of structural and functional network connectivity and you'll see that every study comparing brain activity, connectivity, etc. is approved bu the local Ethic Committee (of the University, the State, etc.).
Ethics is everywhere and to close the discussion,, please you pointed out that the misused better-connected term is not used in the scientific publication, I apologize to have credited the author of the scientific paper, thus they follow the ethics... It's effectively the paper of the Duke University which used the qualifier, I'm sorry to haven't not made the distinction.
PS:
In the article embedded about Ethical issues in scientific publication, I like these excerpts:
Ethical issues are much more important in medical research and publication as they directly affect the suffering humanity....
During the past decade, there has been a gradual erosion of ethical principles that guide scientific research as well as writing and publication...
and think about the world of GATTACA (have you seen the movie?), where people with better-connected brains have all the benefits and where the others use the broom.... All the life is determined by physicians.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov - Ethical issues in scientific publication
Bertrand Nelson
ReplyDeleteI'll have to ask you to stop repeating yourself. We've got your point regarding ethics in scientific papers. However still disagree with what you say in this context.
Creativity covers many fields as you know it...you don't have to be Picasso or Mozart to have "better" connected brains. Unfolding your brain unleashes your creativity. Therefore you can train your brain to be more creative...that translates in neuroplasticity => changes will be observed in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsal prefrontal cortex and posterior brain regions...no mention the increase of the gray matter volume, and that means => "better" connected brain.
And yes...this topic will be closed by me...because my synesthetic brain has no more patience with this.