The Brain Test

The reading I've been doing lately about our growing understanding of how the brain works prompted me to do the Tickle.com Brain Test. The questions themselves were quite interesting, as there were no wrong answers - the option you choose will depend on what feels most natural. The test aims to find out if you are dominant in the left or right hemisphere of your brain, and will also determine if you are a visual or auditory learner. I was not surprised by my lack of hemispherical dominance. Here's what the report said:

Paul, you are balanced-brained, which means that you rely equally on both the left and right hemispheres of your brain.

You are able to draw on the strengths of both the right and left hemispheres depending on context. Typically, people with balanced right and left hemispheres are very comfortable with switching between local and global perspectives - that is, paying attention to both small details and larger issues when the circumstance indicates. That means they can identify elements that make up an image or situation and also attend to the larger, more holistic pattern or unified whole that those details comprise.

You are able to capitalize on the left hemisphere's skills in verbal communication as well on the right hemisphere's focus on patterns and association making. This rare combination makes you a very creative and flexible thinker.

Depending on the situation, you may rely on one hemisphere or the other. Some situations may lend themselves to using your right brain's creativity and flexibility while other situations may call for a more structured approach as dictated by your left brain.

My test results also showed that I am a visual learner. Apparently, Stephen Hawking is also a balanced-brained, visually learning person. As he is said to be the smartest man alive, I am in good company. The test report also has some interesting information about brain physiology:

Your brain is made up of many different parts and is responsible for many different functions of your body. Because of this, it has adapted to be a very specialized organ. There are parts that control what you taste, what you feel, how you learn, how you think, and how you reason. All of this is so no one part gets overtaxed or worn out, and also so you can perform more than one task at a time.

Your brain stem controls your reflexes and involuntary functions such as breathing, heart rate, blood pressure, and digestion. Your cerebellum helps coordinate movement. Your hypothalamus controls body temperature and feeds behaviors like eating, drinking, aggression, and physical pleasure. Your cerebrum, or cerebral cortex, translates information transmitted from all of your sensing organs. It helps start motor functions, it controls emotions, and it is the center for all thinking, reasoning, learning, and memory. In short, it analyzes all information you feed to it.

The cerebral cortex is divided into two hemispheres. The left hemisphere is responsible for speech, controls the right side of your body, and serves as your logic and reasoning center. The right hemisphere governs your creativity and your athleticism among other things. In the past, people oversimplified this relationship.

People used to say if you were logical, you were definitely left-brained, and if you were creative, you were definitely right-brained. This is no longer the case. New research indicates that there's more flexibility when it comes to our gray matter. And if you know where your strengths and weaknesses lie, you can train your brain to become more organized, creative, or better able to process all sorts of information. Here's some general information on the differences between the left and right hemispheres.

Left hemisphere
There's more to your left hemisphere than analytical strength. Your left hemisphere is involved in linear analytical processes, including processing word meanings and symbols, interpreting facts, and much of your language production and reception.

When you look at a photograph or a painting, your left hemisphere is the one that orients on the logical, linear, and literal action in the picture, such as the storyline or the characters in the picture, as opposed to the more abstract or conceptual elements. Furthermore, when you hear a word, it is the left side that decodes that word's meaning, as opposed to something that word might remind you of. Overall, the left hemisphere is heavily involved in more reductionistic processes, such as breaking a picture into its constituent parts, as opposed to seeing it as a single and unified whole.

Right hemisphere
Similarly, the right hemisphere is not just the seat of intuition. Perhaps it is more intuitively oriented than the left, but in most cases it also identifies patterns and performs spatial analyses. This hemisphere tends to process information in non-linear ways, looking at the whole instead of all the parts that make it up.

When you look at a photograph or painting and notice the overall pattern or abstract contour of the image, it is your right hemisphere that is being activated. As another example, the right side looks at a spiral and sees a unified spiral pattern. Whereas the left side of your brain would see the series of lines making up the spiral and would interpret it in a holistic manner.

If you'd like to take the test, click here.

Brain Science

The breakthroughs that neuroscientists are making into understanding the human brain are quite fascinating. Just recently, I read about a type of brain scanning technology that can look deep inside a person's brain and read their intentions before they act. The scan is done using a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which uses the rate of blood flow to measure neural activity. Once patterns of activity are identified, they are translated into meaningful thoughts using specially-designed software, and a person's intentions can then be revealed before they have been acted upon.

Sound familiar? Steven Spielberg's 2002 movie, Minority Report, dealt with the kinds of problems that may arise with widespread use of such an advanced technology. Neuroscientists are aware of the serious ethical issues over how brain-reading technology may be used in the future, and the recent rapid advances have forced those in the field to set up their own neuroethics society.

Barbara Sahakian, a professor of neuro-psychology at Cambridge University in England, said: "Do we want to become a 'Minority Report' society where we're preventing crimes that might not happen? For some of these techniques, it's just a matter of time. It is just another new technology that society has to come to terms with and use for the good, but we should discuss and debate it now because what we don't want is for it to leak into use in court willy nilly without people having thought about the consequences."

Professor Colin Blakemore, a neuroscientist and director of the Medical Research Council, said: "We shouldn't go overboard about the power of these techniques at the moment, but what you can be absolutely sure of is that these will continue to roll out and we will have more and more ability to probe people's intentions, minds, background thoughts, hopes and emotions."

Neuroscience is still far from developing a scanner that could easily read random thoughts. Currently, the scanning technique can read simple intentions, attitudes or emotional states. The computer learns unique patterns of brain activity or signatures that correspond to different thoughts. It then scans the brain to look for these signatures and predicts what the person is thinking. During a study, the researchers asked volunteers to decide whether to add or subtract two numbers they were later shown on a screen. The volunteers' brain imaging revealed signatures of activity in a marble-sized part of the brain called the medial prefrontal cortex that changed depending on their intention to add the numbers or subtract them. The software was able to predict the volunteers' intentions with 70% accuracy.

This score is obviously better than random guessing, yet it shows that the system still has a way to go before it is able to genuinely deduce what patterns are associated with which thoughts.

John-Dylan Haynes, the neuroscientist who led the study, has estimated that research into unspoken intentions could yield simple applications within the next 5 to 10 years, such as reading a person's attitude to a company during a job interview or testing consumer preferences through "neuromarketing".

There are already companies trying to use brain scanners to build a more accurate lie detector. Several recent studies have also used brain imaging to identify tell-tale activity linked to violent behaviour and racial prejudice. Lie detection is more complex, says Haynes, because it can violate mental privacy but also prove innocence. In some cases, refusing to use it to uphold a right to mental privacy could end up denying an accused person's right to self-defence.

Those most excited about this technology will be disabled people, as it has the potential to improve their quality of life. Being able to read thoughts as they arise in a person's mind could lead to computers that allow people to operate email and the internet using thought alone, and write with word processors that can predict which word or sentence you want to type. The technology is also expected to lead to improvements in thought-controlled wheelchairs and artificial limbs that respond when a person imagines moving.

As for using brain scanners to eavesdrop on people's thoughts for the purpose of judging whether they are likely to commit crimes, a crime is only a crime once it's been committed. If governments of the world really want to stop potential law-breakers, they'll need to rewrite the laws so that thinking about crimes is a crime. And then of course they'll have to create a new division in the police force, known as the "Thought Police". Need I say more?

Round the Bays 2007

On Sunday I competed in the annual Round the Bays fun run. This was the first time I had done the run. The distance of 8.4 km seemed shorter than what I had been expecting, and I passed the finish line with a good time. I wasn't planning to run continuously all the way, but the number of people around me forced me to change my mind. During my training runs, I was running for 4 minutes and then walking for 25 seconds. I think this is a good way to minimise fatigue, and also gives the legs a chance to rest, thereby reducing the likelihood of injury.

But during the Round the Bays, I felt like I had to run all the way - I didn't want to be overtaken, and I didn't want to lose momentum. I made a decision to follow the words of Satchel Paige: "Don't look back, something might be gaining on you." The only time I slowed down was to grab a cup of water from the stands at the side of the road. I overtook a lot of my fellow competitors, dodging and weaving my way past kids, mothers with prams, a DHL float, a girl in a Wonder Woman outfit...

Considering the distance I was from the start line when the race began, I think I made up a lot of ground. The advantage the people right at the front have over those further back is the biggest downside of this race, but I guess it can't be helped. When the cannon goes off, the people at the front start moving immediately, and run a distance of 8.4 km. However, the people further back have to slowly edge their way through the crowd for several minutes before even getting to the start line. So most of the participants travel further than 8.4 km, and are also not able to move when the cannon sounds, because everyone is tightly packed together like sardines.

The race was due to start at 9:30 am. I arrived at about 9:15, and jostled my way through the crowd so that I got to a position that was probably one-third of the way back. But then there were no more gaps to move through, so I had to stay put. When the cannon sounded at 9:33, none of the people around me moved for about 30 seconds. When we did start moving, we could only slowly shuffle forward until the crowd thinned. Four minutes and 32 seconds later I got to the start line. So I decided to time my run from this point. I ran it in 39 minutes and 21 seconds, but my official time was 43 minutes and 53 seconds.

The guy who won finished in 26 mins. Very impressive. I calculated that he would have been running one km every 3 minutes and 6 seconds. I was doing one km every 4 minutes and 41 seconds. The fastest woman said this was her third year doing the race. In the previous two years she didn't do so well, because she was far back in the crowd. This year she arrived an hour and a half before start time, just so she could be at the front. I wonder if it is worth it, having to wait around all that time just so a better time can be achieved. I guess if you are competitive and really want to win, then it is.

So that is what I will do in next year's Round the Bays. I will make sure I arrive early. That way I will get a good headstart on everyone else. And I will aim to improve my time of 39:21. I think I could probably get it down to around 35 minutes. To do this, I have to develop a faster stride rate. A faster stride rate means a better time. The quicker steps will also cause my body to stay closer to the ground, thereby reducing the impact of bounce on my ankles and feet.

Researchers have determined that most elite distance runners have a stride rate of about 180 strides per minute. To check my stride rate, what I'm going to do is go out for a normal run, get into my natural running rhythm, and then time myself for 60 seconds as I count my strides. The simple way to do this is to count each time my right foot hits the ground, then multiply by two. The best way to boost stride rate is to focus on rhythm, stay relaxed, and try to glide over the ground.

I think that being able to chart my progress like this is a great way to keep up my motivation to run. Seeing improvement is a good feeling. To quote Friedrich Nietzsche, "What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeing that power is growing, that resistance is overcome."

It's not just the feeling of overcoming resistance that makes runners a happy bunch of people. Hundreds of research studies have been done on exercise-induced neurochemicals, which have been proven to produce feelings of elation, inner harmony, and peacefulness. The "runner's high", which was once believed to be caused by endorphins, has more recently been attributed to endocannabinoids - substances released with exercise that produce an effect similar to a marijuana high. Also contributing to this state of euphoria is epinephrine (adrenaline) - the surge that comes with getting excited for a race, which also has the power to boost confidence and kill pain. Add to that serotonin and dopamine, two other feel-good brain chemicals that are well-known for their ability to reduce depression, and you've got a physiological cocktail that can turn a workout into happy hour.

We all have these neurochemicals flowing through us. Some people are able to tap into them and use them on demand, because their brains have developed a high level of neuroplasticity. Neuroplasticity refers to the brain's ability to change its structure and function by expanding or strengthening certain neural circuits while shrinking or weakening others. "Neurotransmitters released during exercise can contribute to neuroplasticity," says neuroscientist Ronald Duman, Ph.D., a professor at Yale University's School of Medicine. "Neuroplasticity within the brain's motivation and reward pathways may play a role in the perception of experiences, including exercise."

Simply put, the way you view exercise determines how motivated you will be to do it. Athletes can think and behave like better athletes by using positive thinking to reshape their brains. Once you begin to think positively about exercise, you just need to concentrate on doing it - and ensuring that it remains a pleasurable experience. Entering a state of flow when exercising - where your brain checks out and your body takes over - is the key to making the experience pleasurable, because it allows you to lose yourself in the moment - time flies, and you are totally engaged.

These days, I'm making a lot of time for exercise. During my lunch break, I make sure I go for a walk. I do Swiss ball exercises every day, which are good for flexibility. Some days I use a rebounder for 15 minutes or so, as jumping is a good exercise for cardio health. I run regularly. This has had a positive effect on my endurance levels. And lastly, when I get the time I also work out on my Total Gym 1000. The 45 minute workout is great for building strength. In conclusion, exercise is good and I will definitely keep at it.

Real Life as Art

Art often imitates life. There are artists who take this phrase literally and create paintings that look so realistic that they are mistaken for photographs. Some people are not fond of this style of painting, known as photorealism. They feel that it lacks an expression of the artist's inner feelings and experiences. For me, however, paintings that look like photographs are greatly impressive. I like the way they represent life as it is and have no underlying sense of abstraction. I am able to focus on the simple aesthetic beauty of the work and appreciate how much skill must be needed to accurately replicate a photograph using nothing but brushes and paint.

Just over a week ago, I attended a friend's art exhibition. Her work was also an example of art imitating life. But it was not a collection of paintings. It was a little room behind a glass screen, with a desk and chair, biology notes on the wall, a couple of pot plants, a geometric shape made of pencil leads, and a carefully balanced stack of books and CDs. There were a number of other objects strewn arbitrarily around the room. It was this lack of order that prevented me from truly appreciating what this artwork had to offer.

I have now interpreted the work as a metaphor for mental clutter. Additionally, I would like to think that the work represents the transformation of clutter into clarity. Let me explain. Life may seem random and patternless at times, yet we are still able to exert a certain amount of control over it. We create meaning for ourselves, often by way of creative expression. The revelations that come to us as a result of this creativity help us to fashion order from the chaos. During the exhibition, I found out that the aim of my friend's artwork was to display a workspace where creativity takes place. But I missed the deeper meaning behind the randomly-placed objects in the workspace. I now realise that they were there to represent the jumbled mess of thoughts that are swirling around one's head as he/she tries to complete a project of any kind.

However, displaying this intellectually-appealing theme by way of a visual representation is somewhat of a catch-22 situation. I don't know how others feel about this, but I find beauty in patterns and structures. I don't find beauty in haphazard disorder. Visual art is all about appreciating a creation for its form rather than function. The workspace had a function, and that was to exist as a place where chaos is transformed into order. The form through which this function was communicated satisfied my brain, but not my eyes.

Obviously, this opinion won't hold true for everyone. As much as I want to say that artists these days seem unconcerned with creating a work of beauty, it just isn't true. Beauty is subjective. For some art appreciators, a piece is beautiful if it requires interpretation of the emotions the artist felt while working on his/her creation. I'm reminded of the episode of The Simpsons where Homer attempted to build a barbecue pit in his backyard, and ended up creating a deformed mess of metal with an umbrella sticking out one side.

When Homer tries to dump the mangled barbecue, it is somehow brought to the attention of an art dealer in Springfield. She comes to the door of the Simpson home and wants to buy it. Homer tells her, "This isn't art. It's a barbecue that pushed me over the edge." The art dealer, rendered as a sophisticated academic, says, "Art isn't just pretty pictures. It's an expression of raw human emotion. In your case, rage."

Homer becomes an instant art-world celebrity. However, his follow-up artistic attempts are met with disapproval. His initial piece was created spontaneously - perhaps his receptiveness to the path laid by circumstance aligned the stars in his favour. But further success proves elusive. He finds out, as many artists have, that special and evocative artworks are difficult to create. The creation process seems to be all about instincts and reactions, and requires that the artist is in a particularly alert state of mind.

Even if the right factors converge, artists have no way of knowing how the art enthusiasts will react to their work. The more experimental the genre, the greater the uncertainty. Still, artists are always willing to share their creations. And the inspiration their art brings helps other people to inject a little bit of meaning into their own lives.

Nascent Insanity

I was surprised and somewhat shocked after I read this article:

Reprinted from Reuters, February 27, 2007.

Milan teacher cuts pupil's tongue with scissors

MILAN - A Milan teacher cut an unruly 7-year-old pupil's tongue with scissors to silence him, police and school officials said on Tuesday.

The child, of North African origin, needed to go to hospital for five stitches to close the wound.

The boy's family has filed suit against the teacher, who has been suspended after last week's incident.

Police are trying to find out whether the injury was inflicted intentionally or was a joke gone wrong, a police source said.

"We are carrying out a full inquiry to find out what really happened," said Anna Maria Dominici, in charge of schools in the Lombardy region.

The teacher, a support tutor on a temporary contract, risks being fired from the elementary school.

"She is a young teacher but the episode is so serious that inexperience has nothing to do with it," Dominici added.

After reading this article, most of us would assume that the female teacher who did this is mentally imbalanced. That's certainly the first thing that crossed my mind. I then wondered why the Italian school system would let a potentially unstable person become a qualified teacher. Surely the most basic teacher training would state that no matter how badly a child is misbehaving, scissors to the tongue is just not an option.

If the same incident occurred in a prison, I would think to myself, "Well, no surprise here, the offender was already a criminal." But the fact that this happened in a school, and was committed by someone in whom a lot of trust is placed, is what makes this so shocking. This is also why I immediately assume nascent insanity, rather than thinking the woman is just sadistic.

Perhaps it's also easier to forgive her actions if I can say, "Well, she only did that because she's not in her right mind. A person in their right mind would never have done that." Unfortunately, according to that line of reasoning it would seem everyone who commits heinous acts of cruelty or violence is simply "not in their right mind". That's where we move into a grey area.

It would be nice if every person on the planet was inherently pure and virtuous, and for faulty brain chemistry to be the only reason behind acts of violence and cruelty. But I don't think this is the case. Violence is a way of life for some people. To them, violent behaviour is acceptable, not immoral in the least, and over time the behaviour becomes too hard to shake. Should people like this be referred to as "mentally deranged" or do they simply possess different standards of morality?

If I got to see video footage of this teacher, and it turned out she did indeed have a slightly crazed demeanour, maybe I would feel better about the state of humanity. Because I could then say to myself, "I knew it! She's obviously got a screw loose. That's why she did what she did."