I thought it was a fairly agreed upon idea that "The Lizard Brain" isn't referring to a certain part of the brain but rather our more direct instincts, reactions, or actions without forethought?...
I thought it was a fairly agreed upon idea that "The Lizard Brain" isn't referring to a certain part of the brain but rather our more direct instincts, reactions, or actions without forethought?
Like how I would go "I need to let my heart do the talking" - and not trying to say I will give an internal organ, capable mostly of pumping large quantities of liquid access to my speech center (actually I don't even think there is a specific, clearly defined "speech center" but I could be wrong, my heart is handling this discussion ;) )
Interesting thought! I think this is a situation comparable to the "left brain/right brain" scenario, where the truth is that tasks are more evenly divided among the parts of the brain than is...
Interesting thought! I think this is a situation comparable to the "left brain/right brain" scenario, where the truth is that tasks are more evenly divided among the parts of the brain than is commonly assumed, but where "left brain/right brain" can also be used as a metaphor for logical/creative reasoning without taking a position on its scientific accuracy. There are people who take "lizard brain" more literally and people who take it less literally.
That one is a little bit more complicated and perhaps not the best analogy as there are certain morphological structures that tend to exist in one physical location of the brain or other in the...
That one is a little bit more complicated and perhaps not the best analogy as there are certain morphological structures that tend to exist in one physical location of the brain or other in the same way that humans tend to have ten fingers and toes. Then there is added complexity in that additional processing to this signal is usually accomplished by specific parts of the brain in the same way that humans usually are within a certain height range - there's normal statistical variation within a sample population.
It's not a perfect analogy, just a comparable one! There are differences between the right and left hemispheres of the brain, but it doesn't neatly map onto a "creative right hemisphere" and...
It's not a perfect analogy, just a comparable one!
There are differences between the right and left hemispheres of the brain, but it doesn't neatly map onto a "creative right hemisphere" and "logical left hemisphere" as is popularly thought.
Similarly, while one can point to brain structures that exist in earlier animals and still exist in human beings, describing those structures as one's "lizard brain" under the "triune brain theory" is a massive oversimplification at best.
One could make the same argument of "lizard brain" existing within the same space of a comparable but not perfect analogy to describe how the brain stem other structures which evolved early on...
It's not a perfect analogy, just a comparable one!
One could make the same argument of "lizard brain" existing within the same space of a comparable but not perfect analogy to describe how the brain stem other structures which evolved early on work. I'm not sure what the best path forward is, but perhaps additional exposition around explaining just what "lizard brain" is supposed to actually mean.
Well, sure. Analogies can be more applicable or less applicable, though, and apparently the "lizard brain" under triune brain theory is an analogy that certain scientists are raising the alarm...
Well, sure. Analogies can be more applicable or less applicable, though, and apparently the "lizard brain" under triune brain theory is an analogy that certain scientists are raising the alarm about. The authors of the paper this article is about--"Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside" in Current Directions in Psychological Science--seem to think that the "lizard brain" notion is more misleading than it is elucidating. I'm persuaded!
Yes, but it's just their opinion. Note that in the article they do not actually conduct a survey or ask questions to people who have been instructed in this matter. They do bring up one example of...
Yes, but it's just their opinion. Note that in the article they do not actually conduct a survey or ask questions to people who have been instructed in this matter.
They do bring up one example of this kind of thinking:
This division of psychological functions into evolutionarily older animalistic drives versus evolutionarily newer rational thought is exemplified by research on willpower, which has historically been dominated by a framing that contrasts “hot,” immediate, and emotional choices with “cool,” long-term, and rational choices. Should I eat the ice cream, which tastes good now, or the salad, which I know is better for me in the future? In the classic marshmallow studies, delaying gratification by waiting to eat the marshmallows is seen as a good result—indicating more willpower (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990). This framing is expected given that the starting point of this research was the Freudian psychodynamic position, which contrasted hot animalistic drives with cool rational processes.
However, this type of foundational psychology is understood today to not be entirely an accurate picture of what's going on.
Furthermore, the idea of hot/cool thinking is often used to describe thought patterns (primarily emotional vs not) and is important in psychology for other reasons - regardless of which portion of the brain is "responsible" for the observed behavior.
We use similar analogies to explain things like depression, but because it's not associated with another concept such as the "lizard brain" we don't have issues with describing what is fundamentally a poorly understood process (or at least, mechanistically) which is variable among humans but results in the same observed behavior.
Anecdotally I've never heard anyone in any of the psychology, neurobiology, or other related classes think this way and I certainly haven't heard anyone who's actually received a degree in any of these related fields also consider what's being posed by the authors as a "truth" rather than simply a less than perfect analogy meant to simplify a tough concept.
I do, however, agree with the authors that we should perhaps spend more time investigating if there's a better way of explaining things, and as I mentioned before I simply think a small caveat or a more expansive explanation would be adequate to ensure no one believes what the authors are posing as a potential threat for people to believe.
Sure. It is the opinion of these working psychologists and biologists, which has been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, that the "lizard brain" notion is more misleading than it is...
it's just their opinion
Sure. It is the opinion of these working psychologists and biologists, which has been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, that the "lizard brain" notion is more misleading than it is elucidating.
Note that in the article they do not actually conduct a survey or ask questions to people who have been instructed in this matter.
But they do review introductory psychology textbooks and find that "only 2 of the field’s current introductory textbooks describe brain evolution in a way that represents the consensus shared among comparative neurobiologists."
As someone with a degree in neurobiology, I completely agree that the notion is misleading. However, I also believe that they are misinterpreting the damage that it is causing. They are treating...
Sure. It is the opinion of these working psychologists and biologists, which has been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, that the "lizard brain" notion is more misleading than it is elucidating.
As someone with a degree in neurobiology, I completely agree that the notion is misleading.
However, I also believe that they are misinterpreting the damage that it is causing. They are treating it like it's meant to be absorbed as a fact, and not an imperfect analogy, and an analogy is anecdotally the way I've seen it interpreted.
Had they also surveyed an important sample of individuals such as people right after their first course of introductory psychology to find out how these people interpreted this information, I think we'd have a lot more to talk about.
It was a real theory at one point, but as someone who used to be interested in the subject, none of the textbooks I have ever read has ever actually mentioned it.
It was a real theory at one point, but as someone who used to be interested in the subject, none of the textbooks I have ever read has ever actually mentioned it.
the triune-brain theory remains a staple of introductory science textbooks. The study's coauthors sampled 20 introductory psychology textbooks, published from 2009 and 2017. "Of the 14 [textbooks] that mention brain evolution, 86% contained at least one inaccuracy along the lines described above [regarding the "lizard brain" metaphor]," they said. "Said differently, only 2 of the field's current introductory textbooks describe brain evolution in a way that represents the consensus shared among comparative neurobiologists."
I think there are 2 because speech involve's (at least) 2 parts – producing speech yourself and then processing speech from others. According to Wikipedia, there is Warnicke's area which is...
actually I don't even think there is a specific, clearly defined "speech center"
I think there are 2 because speech involve's (at least) 2 parts – producing speech yourself and then processing speech from others. According to Wikipedia, there is Warnicke's area which is involved in comprehension of speech and Broca's area which is involved in production of speech.
Salon does write a lot of crappy articles but in their defense for this particular article, it's about a recent paper in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science titled "Your Brain...
Salon does write a lot of crappy articles but in their defense for this particular article, it's about a recent paper in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science titled "Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside" in which scientists "clarify a widespread misconception in psychological science regarding nervous-system evolution." It's not just some random journo's pet peeve they decided to write about, and I don't believe it's intended to be an overview of all the evidence for and against triune brain theory.
My issue with the article is that all it really says is "the model is wrong", in a verbose manner. I'd go so far as to say it's a waste of time to read. There's a lot of nuance that is missing and...
My issue with the article is that all it really says is "the model is wrong", in a verbose manner. I'd go so far as to say it's a waste of time to read. There's a lot of nuance that is missing and made me really 'hungry' to find out what is actually going on, hence the Wiki entry (or read the original paper, as you mention).
I feel like the important "gist" of the triune brain theory is that your brain is composed of several more or less independent components that all share control of your body, which is true, and...
I feel like the important "gist" of the triune brain theory is that your brain is composed of several more or less independent components that all share control of your body, which is true, and gives you a lot of good intuition for understanding many concepts in psychology (because a psychologist cares about psychology, not evolutionary biology). Yeah, it is a terrible evolutionary model, but it's an easy way to explain to an 18 year old kid that "Your brain is actually multiple different brains and they are all constantly fighting for control of your body" and how such a thing could (conceivably) come to be.
I think the real mistake is thinking that an introductory psychology course needs to be a place where you can build a solid foundation in evolutionary biology.
I also would like to mention, I seriously have never seen a psychology textbook go into more depth than essentially saying "the cerebellum developed before the cerebrum" when it comes to the triune brain theory...
From the article (bold added): The article is debunking the spurious notion of the "lizard brain" which comes from triune brain theory. Apparently, at least 2 introductory textbooks managed to...
From the article (bold added):
the triune-brain theory remains a staple of introductory science textbooks. The study's coauthors sampled 20 introductory psychology textbooks, published from 2009 and 2017. "Of the 14 [textbooks] that mention brain evolution, 86% contained at least one inaccuracy along the lines described above [regarding the "lizard brain" metaphor]," they said. "Said differently, only 2 of the field's current introductory textbooks describe brain evolution in a way that represents the consensus shared among comparative neurobiologists."
The article is debunking the spurious notion of the "lizard brain" which comes from triune brain theory. Apparently, at least 2 introductory textbooks managed to avoid this misleading notion about brain evolution, so it's possible to teach at an introductory level without misleading.
Bohr model is a terrible model for the atom, and does not represent the scientific consensus. Should we be teaching quantum physics to people who just need a chemistry credit? Also, is just having...
Bohr model is a terrible model for the atom, and does not represent the scientific consensus. Should we be teaching quantum physics to people who just need a chemistry credit?
Also, is just having "at least one inaccuracy" really that bad? Especially when it's regarding only a tangentially related subject?
The article says 2 introductory textbooks managed to avoid this misleading notion, so clearly it's possible to teach this subject at an introductory level without misleading regarding the "lizard...
The article says 2 introductory textbooks managed to avoid this misleading notion, so clearly it's possible to teach this subject at an introductory level without misleading regarding the "lizard brain" idea. I don't think it's a comparable situation to the Bohr model of the atom: you can explain brain evolution at an introductory level without resorting to a "triune brain model," whereas (as you note) the next level of complexity over the Bohr model of the atom would require something more than an introduction.
Here's what I'll say. The job of science journalism is not to copy-paste research papers such as to anticipate any possible objections and provide the entire account of evidence and reasoning...
Here's what I'll say. The job of science journalism is not to copy-paste research papers such as to anticipate any possible objections and provide the entire account of evidence and reasoning contained in research papers. The job of science journalism is to boil down science research such that it is more easily consumable and understood by non-scientists. It's hard to hit the sweet spot between not getting stuck in the weeds while ensuring one doesn't omit important information.
This article probably could have stood to include more detail, I agree. But at some point there is a trade-off between answering any possible questions about the subject of the article and providing writing that is easily consumed and understood by non-scientists.
There's also the fact to consider that in the article, they show a linear chain as "incorrect", but they show a branching tree as correct, which is completely ridiculous. Why is it completely...
There's also the fact to consider that in the article, they show a linear chain as "incorrect", but they show a branching tree as correct, which is completely ridiculous. Why is it completely ridiculous? Because a branching tree is literally made of linear chains. Like just look at the shark branch in their picture. Literally every organism between the shark and the node of the branch together forms a linear chain of evolution... Like the development of the vertebrate brain literally began with the hindbrain (the "lizard brain", the parts of your brain like the medulla and cerebellum that control your reflexes and organs and all the "involuntary" stuff), and then later on came the forebrain1 (the cerebrum and all the stuff responsible for conscious thought), which is literally what (b) is illustrating. (b) isn't wrong because it's linear, (b) is wrong because it depicts a human brain and not the brain of the common ancestor of all vertebrates.
It really just feels like their problem is simply that people call it a "lizard brain" which is somewhat misleading because it suggests that humans are descended from reptiles. But imo, that's just semantics, and hardly worth all this trouble.
1: Incidentally, it's my understanding that the organisms that would not go on to develop a forebrain became the arthropods so maybe we could call it an arthropod brain instead?
The psychologist and biologist authors of the paper this article is about--"Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside" in the peer-reviewed Current Directions in Psychological...
The psychologist and biologist authors of the paper this article is about--"Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside" in the peer-reviewed Current Directions in Psychological Science--seem to think that the "lizard brain" notion is more misleading than it is elucidating. It is not just one lone Salon journalist's pet peeve being written about here.
My entire comment was about the journal article referenced in the comment that I replied to, not the salon article. The picture of the shark I was talking about comes from the journal article.
My entire comment was about the journal article referenced in the comment that I replied to, not the salon article. The picture of the shark I was talking about comes from the journal article.
I thought it was a fairly agreed upon idea that "The Lizard Brain" isn't referring to a certain part of the brain but rather our more direct instincts, reactions, or actions without forethought?
Like how I would go "I need to let my heart do the talking" - and not trying to say I will give an internal organ, capable mostly of pumping large quantities of liquid access to my speech center (actually I don't even think there is a specific, clearly defined "speech center" but I could be wrong, my heart is handling this discussion ;) )
Interesting thought! I think this is a situation comparable to the "left brain/right brain" scenario, where the truth is that tasks are more evenly divided among the parts of the brain than is commonly assumed, but where "left brain/right brain" can also be used as a metaphor for logical/creative reasoning without taking a position on its scientific accuracy. There are people who take "lizard brain" more literally and people who take it less literally.
That one is a little bit more complicated and perhaps not the best analogy as there are certain morphological structures that tend to exist in one physical location of the brain or other in the same way that humans tend to have ten fingers and toes. Then there is added complexity in that additional processing to this signal is usually accomplished by specific parts of the brain in the same way that humans usually are within a certain height range - there's normal statistical variation within a sample population.
It's not a perfect analogy, just a comparable one!
There are differences between the right and left hemispheres of the brain, but it doesn't neatly map onto a "creative right hemisphere" and "logical left hemisphere" as is popularly thought.
Similarly, while one can point to brain structures that exist in earlier animals and still exist in human beings, describing those structures as one's "lizard brain" under the "triune brain theory" is a massive oversimplification at best.
One could make the same argument of "lizard brain" existing within the same space of a comparable but not perfect analogy to describe how the brain stem other structures which evolved early on work. I'm not sure what the best path forward is, but perhaps additional exposition around explaining just what "lizard brain" is supposed to actually mean.
Well, sure. Analogies can be more applicable or less applicable, though, and apparently the "lizard brain" under triune brain theory is an analogy that certain scientists are raising the alarm about. The authors of the paper this article is about--"Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside" in
Current Directions in Psychological Science--seem to think that the "lizard brain" notion is more misleading than it is elucidating. I'm persuaded!
Yes, but it's just their opinion. Note that in the article they do not actually conduct a survey or ask questions to people who have been instructed in this matter.
They do bring up one example of this kind of thinking:
However, this type of foundational psychology is understood today to not be entirely an accurate picture of what's going on.
Furthermore, the idea of hot/cool thinking is often used to describe thought patterns (primarily emotional vs not) and is important in psychology for other reasons - regardless of which portion of the brain is "responsible" for the observed behavior.
We use similar analogies to explain things like depression, but because it's not associated with another concept such as the "lizard brain" we don't have issues with describing what is fundamentally a poorly understood process (or at least, mechanistically) which is variable among humans but results in the same observed behavior.
Anecdotally I've never heard anyone in any of the psychology, neurobiology, or other related classes think this way and I certainly haven't heard anyone who's actually received a degree in any of these related fields also consider what's being posed by the authors as a "truth" rather than simply a less than perfect analogy meant to simplify a tough concept.
I do, however, agree with the authors that we should perhaps spend more time investigating if there's a better way of explaining things, and as I mentioned before I simply think a small caveat or a more expansive explanation would be adequate to ensure no one believes what the authors are posing as a potential threat for people to believe.
Sure. It is the opinion of these working psychologists and biologists, which has been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, that the "lizard brain" notion is more misleading than it is elucidating.
But they do review introductory psychology textbooks and find that "only 2 of the field’s current introductory textbooks describe brain evolution in a way that represents the consensus shared among comparative neurobiologists."
As someone with a degree in neurobiology, I completely agree that the notion is misleading.
However, I also believe that they are misinterpreting the damage that it is causing. They are treating it like it's meant to be absorbed as a fact, and not an imperfect analogy, and an analogy is anecdotally the way I've seen it interpreted.
Had they also surveyed an important sample of individuals such as people right after their first course of introductory psychology to find out how these people interpreted this information, I think we'd have a lot more to talk about.
It was a real theory at one point, but as someone who used to be interested in the subject, none of the textbooks I have ever read has ever actually mentioned it.
From the article:
I think there are 2 because speech involve's (at least) 2 parts – producing speech yourself and then processing speech from others. According to Wikipedia, there is Warnicke's area which is involved in comprehension of speech and Broca's area which is involved in production of speech.
I'm underwhelmed by Salon once again. The Wikipedia entry on Triune Brain Theory does a much better job explaining and discussing it.
Salon does write a lot of crappy articles but in their defense for this particular article, it's about a recent paper in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science titled "Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside" in which scientists "clarify a widespread misconception in psychological science regarding nervous-system evolution." It's not just some random journo's pet peeve they decided to write about, and I don't believe it's intended to be an overview of all the evidence for and against triune brain theory.
My issue with the article is that all it really says is "the model is wrong", in a verbose manner. I'd go so far as to say it's a waste of time to read. There's a lot of nuance that is missing and made me really 'hungry' to find out what is actually going on, hence the Wiki entry (or read the original paper, as you mention).
I feel like the important "gist" of the triune brain theory is that your brain is composed of several more or less independent components that all share control of your body, which is true, and gives you a lot of good intuition for understanding many concepts in psychology (because a psychologist cares about psychology, not evolutionary biology). Yeah, it is a terrible evolutionary model, but it's an easy way to explain to an 18 year old kid that "Your brain is actually multiple different brains and they are all constantly fighting for control of your body" and how such a thing could (conceivably) come to be.
I think the real mistake is thinking that an introductory psychology course needs to be a place where you can build a solid foundation in evolutionary biology.
I also would like to mention, I seriously have never seen a psychology textbook go into more depth than essentially saying "the cerebellum developed before the cerebrum" when it comes to the triune brain theory...
From the article (bold added):
The article is debunking the spurious notion of the "lizard brain" which comes from triune brain theory. Apparently, at least 2 introductory textbooks managed to avoid this misleading notion about brain evolution, so it's possible to teach at an introductory level without misleading.
Bohr model is a terrible model for the atom, and does not represent the scientific consensus. Should we be teaching quantum physics to people who just need a chemistry credit?
Also, is just having "at least one inaccuracy" really that bad? Especially when it's regarding only a tangentially related subject?
The article says 2 introductory textbooks managed to avoid this misleading notion, so clearly it's possible to teach this subject at an introductory level without misleading regarding the "lizard brain" idea. I don't think it's a comparable situation to the Bohr model of the atom: you can explain brain evolution at an introductory level without resorting to a "triune brain model," whereas (as you note) the next level of complexity over the Bohr model of the atom would require something more than an introduction.
Here's what I'll say. The job of science journalism is not to copy-paste research papers such as to anticipate any possible objections and provide the entire account of evidence and reasoning contained in research papers. The job of science journalism is to boil down science research such that it is more easily consumable and understood by non-scientists. It's hard to hit the sweet spot between not getting stuck in the weeds while ensuring one doesn't omit important information.
This article probably could have stood to include more detail, I agree. But at some point there is a trade-off between answering any possible questions about the subject of the article and providing writing that is easily consumed and understood by non-scientists.
There's also the fact to consider that in the article, they show a linear chain as "incorrect", but they show a branching tree as correct, which is completely ridiculous. Why is it completely ridiculous? Because a branching tree is literally made of linear chains. Like just look at the shark branch in their picture. Literally every organism between the shark and the node of the branch together forms a linear chain of evolution... Like the development of the vertebrate brain literally began with the hindbrain (the "lizard brain", the parts of your brain like the medulla and cerebellum that control your reflexes and organs and all the "involuntary" stuff), and then later on came the forebrain1 (the cerebrum and all the stuff responsible for conscious thought), which is literally what (b) is illustrating. (b) isn't wrong because it's linear, (b) is wrong because it depicts a human brain and not the brain of the common ancestor of all vertebrates.
It really just feels like their problem is simply that people call it a "lizard brain" which is somewhat misleading because it suggests that humans are descended from reptiles. But imo, that's just semantics, and hardly worth all this trouble.
1: Incidentally, it's my understanding that the organisms that would not go on to develop a forebrain became the arthropods so maybe we could call it an arthropod brain instead?
The psychologist and biologist authors of the paper this article is about--"Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside" in the peer-reviewed Current Directions in Psychological Science--seem to think that the "lizard brain" notion is more misleading than it is elucidating. It is not just one lone Salon journalist's pet peeve being written about here.
My entire comment was about the journal article referenced in the comment that I replied to, not the salon article. The picture of the shark I was talking about comes from the journal article.