Marmosets, small monkeys in South America, have some brain structures more similar to those of humans than rodents. Studies of marmosets may help us understand the evolution of brain development and function. In a study published in The Journal of Neuroscience, a group of researchers in Japan recently compared marmoset and mouse brains. They examined different gene activity patterns in the marmoset brains (above) to determine the animals’ usefulness for studies of higher cognitive abilities, such as language and attention.
Reference:
The Journal of Neuroscience, 11 April 2012, 32(15): 5039-5053; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4788-11.2012
Great new site too, you must check it out.
![psydoctor8:
Check it out: The first neurobiological model for third-party punishment
Here’s a a very recent update to my last post on the Neurobiology of Punishment by Joshua W Buckholtz and René Marois, breaking down the events that take place in the brain when asked to make decisions regarding punishment. Of the five processes you have the frontal cortex (higher mental functions) the amygdala (emotional responses) and the intraparietal sulcus and temporal-parietal junction (interpreting the intent of others, thoery of mind).
In the modern criminal justice system, judges and jury members – impartial third-party decision-makers – are tasked to evaluate the severity of a criminal act, the mental state of the accused and the amount of harm done, and then integrate these evaluations with the applicable legal codes and select the most appropriate punishment from available options. (…)
[via]
One of the key take aways is that:
..it’s assumed legal decision-making is purely based on rational thinking, research suggests that much of the motivation for punishing is driven by negative emotional responses to the harm. This signal appears to be generated in the amygdala, causing people to factor in their emotional state when making decisions instead of making solely factual judgments.
Getting ahead of ourselves: glossy brain porn v. emotion
What happens if the jury is presented with neuroscientific evidence suggesting what may have caused the accused to offend, e.g., a brain scan showing a tumor? This may challenge the negative emotional response since it’s been reported that this type of evidence is so seductive to juries. >law & order, donk donk<
Article here.
[Img: Parts of the brain involved in third party punishment. (Rene Marois, Deborah Brewington/Vanderbilt University)]
This is so fascinating. It will be amazing to see this progression from a neurological AND legal standpoint.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2p8yre4wM1qan221o1_500.jpg)
Check it out: The first neurobiological model for third-party punishment
Here’s a a very recent update to my last post on the Neurobiology of Punishment by Joshua W Buckholtz and René Marois, breaking down the events that take place in the brain when asked to make decisions regarding punishment. Of the five processes you have the frontal cortex (higher mental functions) the amygdala (emotional responses) and the intraparietal sulcus and temporal-parietal junction (interpreting the intent of others, thoery of mind).
In the modern criminal justice system, judges and jury members – impartial third-party decision-makers – are tasked to evaluate the severity of a criminal act, the mental state of the accused and the amount of harm done, and then integrate these evaluations with the applicable legal codes and select the most appropriate punishment from available options. (…)
[via]
One of the key take aways is that:
..it’s assumed legal decision-making is purely based on rational thinking, research suggests that much of the motivation for punishing is driven by negative emotional responses to the harm. This signal appears to be generated in the amygdala, causing people to factor in their emotional state when making decisions instead of making solely factual judgments.
Getting ahead of ourselves: glossy brain porn v. emotion
What happens if the jury is presented with neuroscientific evidence suggesting what may have caused the accused to offend, e.g., a brain scan showing a tumor? This may challenge the negative emotional response since it’s been reported that this type of evidence is so seductive to juries. >law & order, donk donk<
[Img: Parts of the brain involved in third party punishment. (Rene Marois, Deborah Brewington/Vanderbilt University)]
This is so fascinating. It will be amazing to see this progression from a neurological AND legal standpoint.
I wish this meme was around 5-10 years ago when there was so much stupid debate about the semantics of the word “theory”.
Also, I watched this great Dawkins clip the other day when he’s talking to someone who argued, “As far as I know, no scientist has declared evolution a fact. It’s just a theory.” (Btw, I could imagine a hundred hilarious ways for this scene to unfold.) Dawkins just looked at him and said, “Yes, well, I’m a scientist and let me assure you, it is a fact.” (I kinda wish the guy had asked Dawkins for his credentials.)
Anyways, an important point for all debates - scientific or otherwise - is establishing the meaning of words. I’ve seen too many stupid arguments where people agree to an idea but simply use different terminology. Also, don’t let semantics limit your mind; I’ve seen it all too often and it’s troubles me how otherwise intelligent people can get so stuck with something as simple as a label for an idea or a conventional way of understanding something. (e.g. “Marriage is defined as a bond between a man and a woman.” So.. why can’t we just redefine it? Furthermore, it’s not like marriage hasn’t been redefined before.)
P.s. Looking at the photo again, I realized there’s another layer: People often don’t understand “evolution” either, and then I have to tell them that I don’t believe in what they think evolution is either! So, Senior Montoya, wise words all around.
Would You Kill One Person to Save Five? New Research on a Classic Debate
The classic trolly dilemma, now in virtual reality. Why has it taken so long to do this? You see a lot of these dilemmas in evolutionary psychology as proof for certain hypotheses. Now, researchers have created a virtual dilemma to assess the classic trolly dilemma. Imagining the scenario is one thing, but seeing real-life people and situations and making a similar decision is another. What the article doesn’t mention is that when the participants have to physically push a person onto the track to save the five others, there is a huge drop off in the number of participants that would kill one to save five.
Imagine you are a train-yard operator who sees an out-of-control boxcar running down a track that five workers are repairing. The workers won’t have time to get out of the way unless you flip a switch to change the car to another track. But another worker is on the second track. You have just seconds to make a decision: let the five workers die — or kill the one. What do you do?
This dilemma is a famous philosophical conundrum that was originally called the “trolley problem.” Now a team from Michigan State University’s psychology department has used virtual-reality technology to test how we respond psychologically and physiologically when faced with this problem.
The two opposing philosophical approaches to the trolley problem are the utilitarian one (kill one guy in order save the others) and the do-no-harm approach (let God or nature take its course, but don’t make an active choice to kill another person).
In many years of surveys, the vast majority of people — usually about 90% — have chosen to kill the one and save the five. But until now, there’s never been a study examining how people would react in a lifelike setting with real-looking potential victims.
Forget About Survival of the 'Fittest' [WSJ] ⇢
Evolution usually makes do with ‘good enough’
If humans were truly the fittest possible creatures one could imagine, the rational-man model would make sense. But the “fittest” that survived are not necessarily the fittest possible. We are flesh and blood creatures, filled with cognitive quirks that are the detritus of evolution. If we are to move past perpetual cycles of fantasy-driven booms followed by devastating busts, we must recognize evolution’s limits, and confront them head-on.
This is what I love about evolution. The organisms that survive are not perfect, hell, they are not even perfect for their environment. They are however, just good enough to survive.
Study Reveals Possible New Key to Human Evolution
For the first five years of life, human cognition slowly comes to fruition, receiving and storing information and experience from the environment and enabling humans to advance beyond the capabilities of their primate cousins, according to a study published online in Genome Research. An international team of researchers have identified extended synaptic development in the prefrontal cortex of the human brain that sheds new light on the evolution of human cognition and suggests another reason why the human family diverged from other primates 4-6 million years ago.
“Why can we absorb environmental information during infancy and childhood and develop intellectual skills that chimpanzees cannot?” asks study author Dr. Philipp Khaitovich of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. “What makes the human brain so special?”
“Among all developmental changes specific to the human brain, one process – synaptogenesis – clearly stood out,” said Khaitovich. “Our findings suggest that the human brain remains extremely plastic and susceptible to environmental input during the first five years of life.”
Have you guys heard of the “Fairy Wasp” or “Fairy-Fly”? It’s smaller than some unicellular organisms!
Apparently, one of the tricks of its tiny size is that it shed the nuclei from the vast majority of its neurons.
All in all, pretty awesome.
P.s. Note that “fairy fly” is a name for the family, not this particular species (sub-species?).
Pps. Apparently it was also introduced to the US two years ago as a safe way to control for leafhoppers, a type of insect that can ruin crops. MNN report here.
ALERT! ALERT!
New Symphony of Science - The Greatest Show On Earth
It’s about evolution. It’s great, as is the whole series.
(by melodysheep)
Evolution Is Written All Over Your Face
Why are the faces of primates so dramatically different from one another? A very interesting study that examines the differences in faces amongst New World primates.
Humans have pretty bare faces, which may allow us to see facial expressions more easily than if, for example, we had many colors in our faces.
This finding suggests that facial expressions are increasingly important in large groups. If you’re highly social, then facial expressions matter more than having a highly complex pattern on your face.
The state of the evidence for the adaptive functions of nonverbal expressions of emotion.
Click the high-res to read about emotion expression and hypothesized physiological function, communicative function, and the relevant research to each expressed emotion. Click the link below to read the whole article (hurry while it is free!).
Shariff & Tracy (2011). What Are Emotions Expressions For?