Busy Prefrontal Cortex

I’m sitting alone at a well-worn wooden desk at the front of my classroom.  My students aren’t here yet,  but they’ll start trickling in one-by-one soon.  I’ve read some student book reviews and graded papers.  I know the topics we’ll cover today well– poverty, economic disparity, corrupt governments, street-smart kids,  all topics connected to life in Rio de Janeiro’s desperately poor Favela neighborhoods.

I thought a lot about poverty in Latin America earlier today. I didn’t read about it last minute or make detailed notes to guide what I’ll say in class. Instead I gave myself time to free-think. I have so much more to say,  so many more stories to share and concepts to bring up and connect when I free-think during my drive north to the university where I teach History.

At first Poverty– as a concept, hung suspended in my thoughts.  I worked to make it stay–  as if gathering condensed water dispersed in an open sky to form one visible cloud.  And then, I stopped trying. Poverty stood still, on alert, as if anticipating neuronal manipulation.  I, ready to see (with my mind’s eye) what ideas, stories, facts and memories popped into my conscious thought.  Now my sub-conscious did all the work.

I can play this mental game of sorts only when I know a subject well.  I’ve read a lot about poverty of all kinds, on different continents and set in various historical periods.  But more than that– I’ve seen poverty.  I’ve smelled poverty. I’ve pushed through a crowd of one-hundred skinny boys each begging me to buy his box of Chiclets for a buck.  I’ve watched four-dozen indigenous travelers step off a Sunday morning bus and– while their driver fueled up, each find a close-by spot to squat and pull up a skirt or zipper down pants to relieve herself on the blacktop.  Then, with no toilet paper in sight or underwear to soil, each got back on the bus by the time the driver revved-up the engine.

I’ve got plenty of material stored in my Prefrontal cortex.  It’s all kind of loose– disjunct.  But when I let my mind roam where it wills and light up on its own, mental inhibition and judgement shuts down and original connections are possible.

Interestingly, this “mind’s eye” game falls flat when I’m green to a topic. A thought can’t play if it follows and precedes another in a linear pattern. When I don’t know my stuff, I can’t free-think.  That’s because when you learn something new the Prefrontal cortex works for deliberate concentration–  the opposite of free-thinking.

After thinking about thinking,  I’ve decided to set time aside in class today for students to free-think in small groups. Free-thinking doesn’t always happen alone.  But the concept is the same–  loose parameters (a broad topic or question) and laissez-faire ( unmediated chatting) within the topic.  If nothing else,  Poverty– as a concept, will have seen the light on my classroom like never before.

My Inner Map of Old Paris and A Bothered Researcher

This morning, my six-year-old ran to me waving a neatly folded twenty-dollar bill.  She said,  Mom. Is this yours?  I found it on the breakfast table.  Can I have it?  Please?

I have no idea whose bill she held or why she found it where she did.  Regardless, I didn’t let her keep the bill.  I said Thank you, darling, and mumbled something about $20 being a lot of money.  Still, my daughter’s open-faced honesty and hope impressed me.  Her stance showed she had no real expectations of keeping the money–  but she’d try anyhow.  Just in case.  As she handed me the bill and walked away,  my 11 month old, sitting on the carpet two feet away, coughed several times. I bolted off the couch to her, swept the inside of her mouth with my index finger and removed a flat,  juicy piece of wicker.  My baby crawls fast enough now we’ve nicknamed her “speedy”.  She’s more than just speedy though, she’s efficient too.  She constantly collects stuff from the floor to investigate. She even has a method. Here’s how it goes: pick up object, move it from right hand to left. Turn it about in various directions and angles.  Then, either drop it or continue research and taste the thing.  Chew and swallow if possible.

Through all this excitement my two-year old stayed kneeling in front of and using the couch as her desk.  She spread a stack of index cards haphazardly except for her “done” pile.  The “done” cards, stacked together, exhibited various slashes, circles and more of color.  One blue.  One red.  She kept enlarging that “done” pile oblivious to the rest of us.  Focused but just following whims.

Babies and young children constantly try things out on a whim. Cognitive psychologist Alison Gopnick says in her fascinating book, The Philosophical Baby,

Children are the R&D department of the human species– the blue-sky guys,  the brainstormers.

[Their] brains seem to have special qualities that make them especially well suited for imagination and learning.

Each try a child makes and each whim she chases ever-so-slightly changes the physical map of her very plastic brain. New information connects loosely to other (less new) bits to form networks of thought. We all have a zillion (OK, that’s not a true number, but it fits) connections running throughout our brains–  more complex than the Los Angeles highway system.  The younger you are the looser (bumpier and sub-developed) your connections and also the more varied.  Again, Gopnik says,

Babies brains are actually more highly connected than adult brains;  more neural pathways are available to babies than adults.

All these connections are loose, tentative and will fade with time and lack of use. They’re also jumbled about in a disorganized mess. But disorganized minds, whether attached to a baby, a teenager or a 40 yr. old, are more likely to come up with original ideas. Hyper-organized minds think in patterns and already know outcomes from the get-go.  Disorganized minds catch novel patterns but are open-wide about outcomes. Original thoughts have no precedents.

Louis Pasteur said,

Chance favors the prepared mind.

As it turns out chance favors a mind prepared on more than one dimension.  First, you need kick-butt skills– virtuosity.  The 10,000 hours of sweat put in.  Second, your brain needs a zillion loose neuronal connections with plenty of Glia for juice.  Entire sections of your brain need beautifully bumpy, tentative and divergent mental pathways–  like a map of old Paris.

My three little girls’ minds work just like that.  Yet, neuroscientists think my girls are less likely to keep disorganized (divergent-thinking) minds into adulthood than their brother.  Men  keep their childhood R&D capacities but women lose them in favor of more organized, predictable mental pathways.  That’s right folks, women’s thinking tends toward predictability and away from originality.  Since originality is a crucial part of creativity, I must ask:  Could this all be true?

Well.  It’s hard to swallow.  But read on.  Neuroscientist Kenneth M. Heilman found men store the bulk of verbal capacities in one hemisphere (the left),  leaving the other hemisphere (the right)  free for disorganized mental pathways.  Women use both hemispheres for verbal communication and so have less mental space  left for wild chance. Heilman also points out scientists, inventors and mathematicians need top-notch spatial skills to shine. And in test after test, men take the prize over women, in all spatial abilities.  And even in fields requiring rich language networks, men outperform women.  Why? Remember those darned language networks taking up so much mental space in both hemispheres.

Yikes.

I am a thinker,  so I will plod on without screaming or pulling my hair or crying into this evening.

Think about all the women you know and all the men you’ve ever met.  Make yourself a little mental chart and place each person into one of two categories: dependable/predictable thinker or unreliable/original thinker.  How many women make your unreliable/original thinker?  And of those who made it, how many have the education to rocket to the top of their field?  Still have some women on this list?  I hope you do.  This is the twenty-first century, after all.

Still, I’m hot and bothered.  Fortunately,  I’m not the only one.  Ten years ago, researcher Rebecca Jordan-Young began questioning neuroscientific gender studies. Eventually, she could stand it no longer.  So many studies she read simply did not jive with reality. So Jordan-Young spent 10,000 hours going over studies dated back to the 1950′s (actually even earlier).  Then she wrote Brainstorm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences, to peel the layers of untruth within the field.

Note:  If you are a Neuroscientist studying sex differences, please read this book.  It’s solid.

On my end,  I’ll make sure my daughters get the education they need.  I’ll also urge disorganized thought patterns.  I may even require (I’m still wishy-washy on this one) mega-time mastering video games (the spatial/visual– super-challenging kind)  starting tomorrow.

I’ve had enough of organized thought-patterns for now.  I’m hyped to feed my inner-disorganized thinker. I’ll start with fish. Hay. Egypt. Schools for Girls.  Sleepy limbs. Boston. Charles River.  MIT. Dream interpretation. Palm-readers and medical office-types named Kathy, Parkinson’s disease, oligarchies.  I’m gone….. lost in my own old-Paris-map of a brain.

How about you?  Do you think more men naturally tend toward originality than women?

*If you’d like to read more about this topic check out these posts: The Second, Less Creative Sex and Characteristics of highly Creative People:  Intro.

Hee! Hee!–Freud Slipped With Piaget

One of the best things about having young children is that they think your jokes are funny. This morning, my two-year-old needed help getting out of the bathtub. I held out a clean towel for her to step into, wrapped her up and set her on the bath-rug. I watched her dress–undershirt first, then flowery cotton dress.  She then stood smiling with feet apart and hands on her hips. I smiled back and said,

Look at you!  You can dress yourself!

She stayed put for three seconds.  Suddenly, she raised her eyebrows and said,

Oops!  I forgot my panties!

She searched the area.  Then looked to me for help.

Where are they?  Where are my panties?

I shrugged and whispered as if telling her a secret,

I think they are hiding!

She burst out laughing. We both melted into giggles at the slightest hint of silliness for an entire hour.

A stand-up comedian friend of mine once said,

Humor is the highest expression of human intelligence.

This assertion seems a bit of a stretch, but it isn’t too far off.  The fact that my two-year-old gets my little jokes means she can tell the difference between imagination and reality–surely this is a sign of at least budding intelligence.

Although most cognitive psychologists today would agree with me, this flies in the face of what Jean Piaget and Sigmund Freud believed about children’s cognitive abilities. Both believed children produced so much fantastic, unreal play because they couldn’t tell the difference between imagination and reality. Cognitive psychologist Alison Gopnick says,

The picture we used to have of children was that they spent all of this time doing pretend play because they had these very limited minds, but in fact what we’ve now discovered is that children have more powerful learning abilities than we do as adults. A lot of their characteristic traits, like their pretend play, are signs of how powerful their imaginative abilities are.

One of the most respected philosophers on Creativity, Arthur Koestler, believed the moment you get a joke is a crucible between higher intelligence and lower reflexes. In his 1964 book The Act of Creation, he says,

Humour [sic] is the only domain of creative activity where a stimulus on a high level of complexity produces a massive and sharply defined response on the level of physiological reflexes.

My joke anthropomorphizing my daughter’s panties was far from brilliant. It was almost reflexive.   I didn’t think about it.  It popped into my head and I said it. But if not a measure of my intelligence, my daughter’s reaction to it proved she’s smarter than Sigmund Freud or Jean Piaget would have thought–and that is just plain cool.

Eating a Flashlight and Sucking Up Dust

My nine-month-old baby is definitely in the oral stage of cognitive development.  Just before sunrise this morning when she and I were the only ones awake in our dark house, I handed her a small, flashlight to play with.  I thought she would like watching the projected light move by her direction. But she didn’t give a hoot about the light’s movements–she just stuffed the thing, rather awkwardly, light side in, into her wide-open little mouth. She tests everything this way.   She’s learned puke-green pea puree from a baby food jar is bad.  If she sees it coming–she purses her lips tight.   She’s decided pretzel sticks sprinkled with sea salt are worth holding tightly.  It’s like her mouth is directly connected to her brain’s dopamine generators.  When an object or texture feels good in her mouth, dopamine is released in her growing brain and the moment turns into a pleasurable memory–an Invariant Representation or hook for pleasurable experiences to come.  When something is gross enough to spit out there’s no such rush of dopamine.  The momentary displeasure turns into a different sort of learned experience–knowing what to avoid.  Dopamine provides teaching signals to parts of the brain responsible for acquiring new behavior.

My baby’s dopaminergic engine is running on turbo at this time in her young life.  Her capacity to recover from downers is mythological, even phoenician.  She doesn’t stay down after a displeasure, no matter how intense.  She just flies again into the unknown assuming new pleasures and new life.  Creative people retain–or in some cases re-acquire, this ability to learn from mistakes and move on, fast. The more tries, the better.  Dopamine island hopping.

Several years ago, I finally bought a vacuum cleaner I liked.  It has no bags to empty and sucks up popcorn or long hair without a glitch even years after its first use.  Marine engineer and architect, James Dyson, created a better vacuum by using the same cyclone technology used in saw mills to increase his vacuum’s suction power lifespan to–virtually endless.  Dyson, like most inventors, first made a garage-full of very bad devises.  He could not stay depressed about mistakes for long but he did not repeat mistakes either.  The dopamine engine in Dyson’s brain worked overtime signaling and directing towards his final “perfect” vacuum system. Dyson says,

I made 5,127 prototypes of my vacuum before I got it right. There were 5,126 failures. But I learned from each one. That’s how I came up with a solution. So I don’t mind failure.

Babies move on quickly, as do successful inventors.  But when creative-types linger over mistakes rather than moving forward quickly, they end up parched for lack of dopamine.  Then learning from mistakes is no longer natural or endurable.  James Dyson says,

I’ve always thought that schoolchildren should be marked by the number of failures they’ve had. The child who tries strange things and experiences lots of failures to get there is probably more creative.

Counting mistakes?!  Rocket on!  I’ve made several just posting this blog.  But who cares, I’m taking flight all over again.

Talk to you tomorrow when I’ll need it again.

%d bloggers like this: