The New Brain
The title of a book by Dr Richard Restak in which he argues that the 'modern age' is rewiring our minds.
Two things worth knowing about the brain:1) It hasn't evolved significantly in the last 100,000 years (so we aren't 'designed' to do most of the things we actually find ourselves doing these days)2) It is remarkably malleable in response to our external environment (so we can adapt as individuals if not as a species)
This much said, there are a couple of interesting research conclusions:
- We can't multi-task: "actually our brain can only work on one thing at a time. Rather than allowing us to do two thing s at te same time efficiently, multi-tasking actually results in inefficient shifts in our attention". There are some exceptions (such as listening to music whist woodworking etc.) - but only where there are no overlaps in neurological functionality whatsoever.
- Hallowell & Ratey believe that the impact of overwhelming media is an adult form of Adult Attention-Defecit Disorder (AADD) characterised by some of the following symptoms:- a sense of underachievement, not meeting one's goals- difficulty getting organised- chronic procrastination or difficulty getting started- many simultaneous projects, but trouble with follow-through- a tendency to say whatever comes to mind without due consideration- a frequent search for high stimulation- intolerance of boredom- easy distractability- impatient
(there were more but I got bored of typing).
Restak comments on how the reciprocal relationship: as we breed generations of more attention-deficient individuals, the media follow suit - shorter bursts of time-compressed information, multiple channels of infomation presented on a single screen, highly emotive, simplified imagery etc., etc.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Friday, January 06, 2006
Authenticity
Authenticity
Two events that have struck me over the last couple of days:- a conference on 'Creating Learning Organisations' held at the Dept. of Health- a short essay by Alain De Botton entitled 'authenticity' on how he struggled to be 'natural' on a date with a girl he fancied.
Both seem to suffer from two different types of inauthenticity - an ontology of inauthenticity, if you like. One type of inauthenticity is disclosed, paraded - but only as a means of hiding the deeper level: a bit like the token military trials surrounding Iraq which somehow are meant to imply that wanton destruction of civilians isn't business as usual.
On Alain's date, he grapples with the familiar problem of trying to be yourself at the same time as you are trying to impress someone. This is interesting, I think, because it raises questions as to the extent in which in any situation we are 'ourselves' against a more constructivist perspective that we 'are' no more than self-presentation. However, I end up feeling that he misses a more fundamental point - that this is basically not how attraction works, that he has over-intellectualised the phenomenon and as a consequence missed what is going on entirely - like someone who is given a book and does no more than admire the intricate binding.
The conference was not dissimilar: the same strange (almost desperate) focus on 'learning styles' and on intellectualising the processes of learning (presumably to reassure ourselves that we are, still, in a frightening potent world the 'experts') - but almost a turning away from what is really happening in the world of learning - indeed, has been happening for some time. A ghastly presumption that there would be a role for us all in the future... at the very end, and after some reflection, I thought it would be worth asking the question...
and predictably the same familiar mantras 'we will be facilitators, and enablers of the future / there will always be a need for classroom training / technology can't replace people'.
Nietzsche wondered if philosophy was no more than an series of inept attempts to win a woman (using woman as a metaphor for truth whilst poking fun at his contemporaries). And the common problems are evident in this light: we do not take things for what they are, instead we over-interpret and idealise. We imagine that what we think is more important than it is, and we fail to connect with or understand that level at which things are important - of praxis. A point made by Wittgenstein about language.
Here's a practical example: when people want to know something, they ring people up, or ask the person across the desk. What are we doing about that?
Two events that have struck me over the last couple of days:- a conference on 'Creating Learning Organisations' held at the Dept. of Health- a short essay by Alain De Botton entitled 'authenticity' on how he struggled to be 'natural' on a date with a girl he fancied.
Both seem to suffer from two different types of inauthenticity - an ontology of inauthenticity, if you like. One type of inauthenticity is disclosed, paraded - but only as a means of hiding the deeper level: a bit like the token military trials surrounding Iraq which somehow are meant to imply that wanton destruction of civilians isn't business as usual.
On Alain's date, he grapples with the familiar problem of trying to be yourself at the same time as you are trying to impress someone. This is interesting, I think, because it raises questions as to the extent in which in any situation we are 'ourselves' against a more constructivist perspective that we 'are' no more than self-presentation. However, I end up feeling that he misses a more fundamental point - that this is basically not how attraction works, that he has over-intellectualised the phenomenon and as a consequence missed what is going on entirely - like someone who is given a book and does no more than admire the intricate binding.
The conference was not dissimilar: the same strange (almost desperate) focus on 'learning styles' and on intellectualising the processes of learning (presumably to reassure ourselves that we are, still, in a frightening potent world the 'experts') - but almost a turning away from what is really happening in the world of learning - indeed, has been happening for some time. A ghastly presumption that there would be a role for us all in the future... at the very end, and after some reflection, I thought it would be worth asking the question...
and predictably the same familiar mantras 'we will be facilitators, and enablers of the future / there will always be a need for classroom training / technology can't replace people'.
Nietzsche wondered if philosophy was no more than an series of inept attempts to win a woman (using woman as a metaphor for truth whilst poking fun at his contemporaries). And the common problems are evident in this light: we do not take things for what they are, instead we over-interpret and idealise. We imagine that what we think is more important than it is, and we fail to connect with or understand that level at which things are important - of praxis. A point made by Wittgenstein about language.
Here's a practical example: when people want to know something, they ring people up, or ask the person across the desk. What are we doing about that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)