Predation certainly nurtured it, but I think even early multi cell creatures with proto eyes started the path to evolving the brain. The enteric nervous system had already been around a while, and gee I’d like to see that discussed more.
Good point! There was a lot of evolution at very small scales for things like controlling digestion or perhaps sensing environmental threats before the 'arms race' that began about 500 million years ago. Here's a neat diagram that goes into the evolution from microorganisms: www.scientificamerican.com/article/your-brain-evolved-from-bacteria/ And a little more detail from Feldman Barrett: www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-did-we-evolve-brains-in-the-first-place
Exactly, and those "primitive" sensory organs were also nurtured bij predation. Early multicellular life needed these organs to escape predators and locate food (predation also applies to heterotrophs eating autotrophs).
Next to predation i think general environment was a big part in developing sensory organs. Even single-celled life has ways to escape environments that contain toxins to them.
I always assumed "lizard brain" was just shorthand or metaphor to refer to an older, more primitive part of the brain. I didn't realize some people were taking it literally and that it had become canon...🤣🤔🤯
There are snake breeders who actually believe this sort of stuff, and use it to excuse giving their animals 0 enrichment or ability to make choices throughout their lives. ''They don't have thoughts, emotions, and can't learn... they run on pure instincts!'' I mean... yeah no kidding your snake will seem brain-dead when it lives in a barren box, unable to do anything ever, and has no brain stimulation in the slightest.
No that metaphor is the myth that is debunked in the video namely that one somehow a lizard's brain is more primitive and two that some older brain that we humans have is from lizards.
Using the definition on people who are on top of us who make their luxurious living on us is a faulty idea, since these ppl are above us, squeezing every drop of life out of us common folks, designing our future; engineering society however bad that is for us. Being able to control this many humans speaks about more intelligence than just flight or fight. Life is beautiful but it's not fair at all. It is cruel sometimes and the world wasn't founded on compassion either.
It is, I think she's just an idiot. I've never heard of someone actually thinking that's physically how it goes in the brain, like before we get to be Kids, as babies we would still have a "Lizard Brain". That's not how anyone thinks, Ma'am.
I don't think they do and I don't think it has. I fervently hope so. Because that take hinders a nice talk about this topic very much. Anyway gotta run, bake in the sun, catch some bugs.
Sea Squirts are born with a brain, they use it to find a nice place to live where they attach themselves, and then they proceed to digest their brain, spine, and eyes because they don't need them anymore. This was something that I always found interesting.
Domestic cats do something similar as they grow into adult cats they will get rid of their excess neurons that are not being used. That is, they are born with more neurons than they will have as adult cats.
Maybe I happened to get exposed to the correct neuroscience, but I always thought of the triune brain as a metaphor to help memorize where basic behavioral and perceptual functioning occurs.
Im a reptile keeper and enthusiast. Ive got 30 snakes and 5 geckos. Im not gonna pretend theyre on the level of a dog or human. But there is much more going on up there than what is traditionally believed. You don't survive for 100 million years virtually unchanged if you're a big old dummy. And they react differently to different people, They recognize their owner versus a stranger, and learn from past experience. And some of them you looking in their eyes and you can tell that the wheels are turning, that they are figuring things out. Glad to see that this myth of the reptile brain is finally being debunked in the mainstream, It's 150-year-old theory that was invented by a guy who believed humans were not animals, and worked backwards from that conclusion. We need to start giving animals the respect they deserve because viewing them as these beings wholly dependent on instinct is doing us and them a great disservice
That's so interesting! Our crew recently portraited the sperm whale brain, which is the biggest within the animal kingdom. And it's so fascinating to see how this plays a big role not only in genetic evolution but also in cultural evolution, which made them able to outsmart hunters in the past.
Isn’t the “sperm” they were harvesting to make oil in the head, near the brain? I was just listening to a podcast about the Essex, but it was more comedy than science.
If Carl Sagan had learned he was wrong about the triune brain model (or about anything else, really) he likely would have accepted the correction, gratefully, because this is science not religion.
Sagan is the father of the new age scientism religion that pundits like Shill Nye, Neil Degreaser Tyson, and Steven Faking spew out. They will say the science is settled until they are proven wrong and then act like they never said anything definitive. Carl Sagan was a scientist, but he was a performer more than anything
the inclination to patronize & "prove wrong" the very giants upon whose shoulders today's scientists stand has made for a very spoiled laboratory environment! 💚I'd rather be a dragon in Eden or a charioteer than a lab-grown brain talking about itself.
@@CattleyaHicksthe shoulders of what? Pro slavery dummies like jesus who thought the flu was a desert jhin that needed to be exorcized? Religious ppl have been murdering scientists and retarding human progress non stop for thousands of years. We have progressed *IN SPITE OF* religious lunatics.
Quite honestly, I'm even amazed he defended such an absurd theory to begin with, but yes I am sure, he would have corrected himself. But this is a good reminder that, people should stay in their lanes and not stray away to other topics they are not familiar with.
@@herlandercarvalho was he really pushing it super hard or was he like yeah my buddies in that field talked to me about this and it was convincing at the time?
@@mariusskrupskis2042 Lisa Feldman has 30 years in the field of neuroscience. I believe she is pretty much qualified to imply conclusions, unlike the self-help gurus who insist on the lizard brain theory.
@@mariusskrupskis2042 i'm glad she at least explicitly put it as a philosophical opinion prefaced with "we can't know why". in my opinion it's a bad take though lol, if not just for the reason that humans evolved communally, not solitarily - like, communities of humans were in competition with other communities, not individual humans all in competition with each other, and as such, the important part biologically would be the traits circulating around the community's general gene pool getting passed down, including traits that lead to variance within the community, including members who wouldn't individually reproduce
probs to the guys who technically produced the interview. Setting is awesome and the fact the the windows are not clipped - such a satisfaction to watch.
@@trappart9209on any given day, she is the most (or within the top 5) quoted scientists in the world. She's top of her field. People in that spot always get criticism from below.
@@tmtb80 she shut down my open mind with the quib about people not having actual lizard brains. To me that's on par with creationists scoffing evolution because there're still monkeys around, at which time I turn away and let them be. Your comment makes me now think/hope it was a quib. I'll pry open my mind and take in some more of her words.
Every time you are presented with a challenge, think of it as a choice point. These moments are precious opportunities. Life will get more interesting if you evolve along the way. You already know the old tune. Ask yourself if it is time for a new one. Paulo Coehlo said, “Never allow waiting to become a habit. Live your dreams and take risks. Life is happening now.”
The term "lizard brain" should probably rather be "lizard-like amniote brain", as the split between Archosauriae (crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, birds) and Lepidosauriae (lizards, snakes, comodo dragons et.al.) happened much later (around 245 million years ago) than the split between Diapsida (which include all the former groups) and Synapsida, of which mammals are the last surviving group (around 310 million years ago).
What I find fascinating about brains and nervous systems are those of octopi. Yes there is a central brain, but about 2/3rds of its neurons are located in its arms. Which to me means that its neural system is more like a conductor leading an orchestra or perhaps a combination of centrally located sensory and response with semi independent distributed sensory and response apparatus. The accepted hallmarks of intelligence are very much present in octopi (puzzle solving, manipulation of the local environment and so on) that I wonder how their neural system has allowed them to develop these behavioral abilities. The other thing that I find curious about octopi is the combination of radial and lateral symmetry. Another item that I am curious about with octopi are the suckers on their tentacles. Surely these must have some purpose other than grasping objects. If they are a sensory organ, what are they sensing? Note: I am trying very hard to avoid the computer analogies as I do not wish to try to explain something by using an analogy of analogy.
People don't say "lizard brain" to literally mean the brain of a lizard. They say it to represent the parts of the brain that represent structures and operations that are rudimentary and likely evolved first.
“Lizard brain” is literally just referring to how our brain is hierarchically structured. You have the most basic nervous system which regulates homeostasis, you have slightly higher stuff like motion planning, and then you have things like instincts, drives urges. The “lizard brain” is those last ones. This title is like saying it’s a myth that Spider-Man could make web shoot out of his arms. No one actually thinks we have a lizard brain inside of our actual brain
The whole lizard brain thing is always kinda weird because the implications is that's where all your basic instincts are but lizards definitely react to situation with more than just pure instincts (like lizards can be taught to tolerate handling for example. That's knowledge they gained over time rather than something they had from birth).
Yes, technically we don't have lizard brains because they're not part of our evolutionary tree. But, we had some lizard like ancestors in the form of the Synapsids during the Permian era. I think "lizard brain" is referring to a very early lizard like land animal that is also a common ancestor with mammals. This ancestor would share brain features with only part of our brain which is the "lizard brain".
Still incorrect. The reptile brain and mammal brain are very different. It's like saying a car is a simpler form of an airplane. The bird brain is very different from the mammalian brain, yet some birds are very smart. Of course, birds are technically reptiles. Animals are good at the things they need to be good at and subsequently have the brain they need.
@@realtalk5329That seems to be the joke. In a realm where the earth was mostly covered in water, the species that can navigate such an environment is going to be predominantly amphibian But the point is that as mammals came into being, there would be traces of their genetic being that stem back to amphibious physiology. As in the reproductive system had not developed into the placenta base that mammals are known for
The triune brain is only a model people, to help explain the evolution of automatic/survival brain, social/emotional brain and rational/calculating/planning brain. I originally heard automatic/survival brain called dinosaur brain. Just a neat idea that everyone understands
Yeah listening to her debunking this she doesn’t explain well the counter model.. it makes evolutionary sense to have a part of the brain that operates the autonomic nerves first and then further evolving emotions that drive more action and further evolving emotions that drive rational thought to survive in the world .. i don’t understand the point of this video honestly.. there’s no new insight here.. just a neuroscientist telling me the old model is wrong
The myth, supposedly, is that each system evolved independentntly and in order from lower to higher on the brain stem. I am not sure if MacLean actually thought that to be the case., but even so, there are people influenced by MacLean who do not view it in those terms. But the video seems to want to throw out the idea that these structures are homologous in some degree is a bit too much. it is like saying that dog legs and lizard legs are not at all similar.
When people say "lizard brain" I dont think they mean literally, I think they are referring to the simple prehistoric part of the brain which does all the basic stuff.
So when you say there was an originating predator-prey moment, for a creature that can't think or make choices, was it just a matter of happenstance? It went to eat its "normal" diet, ingested something different by accident, then the circuitry got rewired to seek out the new thing because it was more energy efficient or whatever, and that snowballed into brains forming and gradually becoming more complex over time?
I think it was just random beneficial mutations that were selected for because they helped the animal prey on others and helped that animal avoid becoming prey themselves, and as these mutations built up the animals grew larger and more complex bodies and those bigger bodies needed more co-ordination
@@dinosaurb I don't buy it. How can an unintelligible, unguided, random process result in a thinking brain with consciousness? And then further more, how could you trust your own rationality if it were all the result of "randomness and mutations"?
@@mitchelltj1 I mean, the way you criticize this idea it seems you aren't seeing the whole picture. Billions, maybe even trillions of these creatures over millions of years. Something fascinating is bound to happen. I'm sure there is more to the story, but this is a pretty simplistic explanation that people can understand and digest. No pun intended. LOL.
i recently started reading a book called the courage to be disliked which talks about teleology and trauma, and it’s a fascinating link to our purpose and goal. we’re capable of continuously evolving as this video shows. and i think a huge stage in that human evolution is emotional intelligence and self awareness. i highly recommend the book to anyone familiar with sigmand freud and even carl jung’s work. because it actually brings to light the work of a third prominent psychologist named alfred adler, who i think hasn’t been recognized as much. his work holds the key to how we can take charge of our own story and grow despite our past traumas and conditionings.
Huh? Mammals and reptiles evolved from land dwelling basal amniotes, not fish! We needed to lay eggs on land, this ability didn’t evolve separately in the mammalian and reptile lines, it evolved once. these amniotes were already quite different from fish and basically reptiles. We of course have fish ancestors but also reptile ancestors.
Carl Sagan never said that we have "lizard brains". In fact, modern reptiles and mammals both evolved from reptilian like animals (Reptiliomorpha and Amniota), back in the late carboniferous períod, 318 million years ago. Moreover, evolution has showed to the extent of exhaustion, that novel structures have to evolve by coopting preexisting ones. It's one of the basic principles underlying embryology and development.
That was refreshing. She sounds like a verifiable scientist. In Buddhism, we practice letting go to all ego attachments which can be, "I have the answers!" We practice awareness and accept that all of reality is a projection from the mind.
@@freedombro6502 read “The Master and His Emissary” and then any Oliver Sachs. The way we experience reality and actual reality are two very different things. Yes things are both tangible and real. And no, that doesn’t mean we experience them as some kind of objective reality. I use this metaphor a lot to explain perception. Two guys in the woods. One is a park ranger, the other guy is a first timer in the wilderness. It’s the exact same stimuli for both men, with two dramatically different responses, even physiologically. The ranger knows to be cautious, and avoids the bear with experience. The other guy might have a complete adrenaline dump and freeze or run. The way we experience tangible reality is often in a manner very different from our fellow humans.
@@markhathaway9456 oh absolutely. It’s one of those things where we must rely heavily on science for the facts. Science is our objectivity, and it too is flawed. The way the news reports unconfirmed studies trouble me. To even come close to scientific objectivity we must have multiple confirmations on the results of studies, whenever possible. Without at least one confirmation, how can we regard unrepeated results as fact?
I like brain stuff, so I just bought her book on audible, will be interested to hear it. The flip side is that I'm wondering if the "debunking" critique here is substantive, in that it seems to rest on the point that modern reptiles have structures in their brain that are homologous to non-reptile parts of the human brain. However, if they're homologous but also not comparable in terms of function while the so-called "lizard brain" is similar between humans and reptiles, then one could still defend the use of the term "lizard brain."
I don't see how this explanation (very interesting nonetheless) go against the lizard brain theory, that I understand as: "there's a part of our brains dedicated to basic survival and urges". Please correct me if I'm wrong and enlighten me about this
I felt like she was insisting in the the wrongness of the "lizard brain" hypothesis, because "we don't have the brain of a lizard"... well, yeah . The triune brain is supposed to be a model to explain differences in the brain, but just a model. Nobody said that we literally have a lizard brain inside of us.... that's weird.
i think the point here would most favourably be that there isn't one "part" of the brain dedicated to those things, but rather that they're more just traits that are part of the overall brain soup and are not untouched nor separate from our more recently evolved traits. also i've seen some people use "lizard brain" as an excuse to armchair-psychoanalyse subconscious intent in behaviours which have much simpler and more self-evident explanations that don't require imagining the presence of invisible ulterior motives that can't be proven i will say though, at the end, while she gives a reasonable preface about not knowing the reasons i.e. the causes for certain things to evolve and we can only philosophically speculate based on function, i think the conclusion she reaches from that point of "the ultimate job is to pass on your genes" is still a bad take in how weirdly prescriptive it is lol, just not as bad as when people imply that literally every action we take is subconsciously driven by a lizard brain desire to reproduce (anyway i said this in another comment but humans evolved communally, not solitarily, i.e. communities were in competition with other communities, much less so individual humans in competition with each other, so for certain traits to be passed down it would not have been necessary for every individual with those traits to reproduce, but rather their community as a whole do well and continue on, in which there was some chance of having those traits circulating around the general gene pool)
Lizards can be quite intelligent. Tegus and Savanah monitors are two of several large lizards that make wonderful, if high-maintenance, pets. They can bond with their owners and can even play with toys. Some lizards are more social creatures than once thought possible. Some pair bond, some live in burrows with extended family members. Reptiles deserve more respect than we give them.
My experience was more with salvator monitors and heloderma, but consistent with your statement. They seek out the company of the humans in their lives.
yeah, Exothermic animals are more efficient in their internal metabolic processes, this does not mean that they are more intelligent, high top-tier predator or prey, or complex than endothermic animals. maybe a question, if metabolic efficiency is the fundamental biological rate that governs most observed patterns in ecology, then what happen with reptile ? how does the contrary happen with human(endothermic organisms)? is the fundamental biological rate, are not really connected with the complexity of brain?
Did anyone ever think we actually have a brain from a lizard built it?! 😂 ... I think the idea was that the functions of the brain are layered from basic/ vital/ automatic to advanced higher functions that we vontrol at will.
There may be an important difference between the parts of neural systems that have pre-programmed less-changeable pathways created by ancestral DNA, and the neural systems that can change and store memory...possibly related to differences in synapse chemistry. Knowing how this works might help to improve human behavior and learning.
She is a beast and ahead of her time. If you read her, most psychological theories become obsolete. The brain is definitely a predictive entity, learning that changed the way I look at the world. Keep it up. 😊
This absolutely doesn't mean thought processing doesn't function in layers of priority. It just means it isn't physically layered (i.e. is not in layers made of DNA of different "tenure"). It is equivalently the same in output as in the physically layered model.
I don't feel compelled to pass my jeans along. I use them, patch and repair as needed, then trash them. Our leading neuroscientist needs smaller scarves that don't look like neck braces. And I never really know with her if I'm learning something or unlearning something.
I love the way people within collective illusions cant see out of them, for billions of years the instinct brain (run program and fight or flight) was the prime focus, otherwise known as the Thalamus= insects Then for billions of years the focus was Bird/lizard electro magnetic (attachment and emotional range(meaning deciding when to fight or flight)) otherwise known as the Amygdala Then for billions of years the focus was on the Cortices Its that simple but , she is trapped within a confirmation bias bubble that elevates the importance of the cortices in awareness The order to evolve comes from the base of all things and therefore to say we are not on the same branch is literally "cant see the wood for the trees"
Well. We have to remember that the scientists are only speculating a theory that the brain developed because one animal intentionally ate another. The reason they came to that conclusion could be explained by the fact that the scientists were possibly biased due to their own primitive action of eating the flesh of other animals. This is a dangerous theory and as a vegan I oppose it. We need to continue evolving as a species and to do that we all need to go vegan. That is what I believe.🌱
I always thought the “lizard brain” was the limbic system because reptiles have instincts and base emotions (at least fear, aggression, attraction) but not higher thought. So when you’re acting on instinct or base feelings, your “lizard brain” is driving your behavior more predominantly than your cerebral cortex
well, plato talked about the soul, and he didn't talk about instinct and emotion. he said similar things, but this way of putting it is identical to the medievals which tended to picture the romans as medieval in clothing, architecture and habit.
Yeah I read that Carl Sagan book decades ago. It does appear that theory was very flawed, DNA based science has come along way since then. The brain function improvements that gave us an environmental and subsequent reproductive advantage would more likely survive and see further gain. Our chimp and ape cousins would be the first to consider in comparison. Being able to climb trees is a common trait, and helps simian critters survive predation. Our biggest threat nowadays is our fellow sapiens that use their large prefrontal cortex to dream up bigger and more deadly ways to kill another sapient critter. Sad. Evolutionary dead-end.
I feel like this is something that was used as a metaphor for where functions are or what functions are more basic and primordial, but then it was taken literally. As if evolution works by just putting another layer on top.
The brain myth was immortalized in Star Trek, where Spock was rational, Bones was emotional, and Scotty was the cerebellum, which were all directed by Kirk.
That's not referring to the brain. That's referring to the tripartite mind. And Scotty wasn't involved It's, Id -Bones, Ego - Spock, and Superego - Kirk
I've seen so many video that claim to debunk the triune brain theory and then don't. It doesn't matter to me if it's true or false, I'm ready to follow the evidence, but they don't explain what is wrong.
Thank you SO MUCH for this! As a neuroscientist, it annoys me no end every time someone repeats that old nonsense about lizard brains, "emotion centers" (the limbic system) etc. Another idiotic version of this myth is the "Polyvagal Theory". The brain is just too complex for these oversimplifications to work, that's why scientists can spend a lifetime trying to understand one tiny part of it. There will be no theory that explains the whole brain, deal with it.
I get what you are saying but doesn’t make evolutionary sense that the base part of the brain evolved first and was more autonomic which drove evolution of the lymbic part of the brain which allowed emotions to drive actions to survive.. eventually leading to emotions to drive abstract thinking in the prefrontal cortex and to plan for possible scenarios of the future and better manipulation of the environment?
@@MrPelham32 It could make sense, if brains were so clearly compartmentalized. Yes, there is some modularity, especially with regard to sensory processing, but emotions are not easy to separate from other cognitive processes, especially in the messiness of real life. There are no complex emotions without complex cognition. Even integrating complex sensory input into simple action output still requires some level of pattern recognition which can quickly get abstract. Only if both your sensory input and your action outputs are very simple, can you get away with not having many cognitive capacities, but then you also don't need any emotional complexity.
There is no teleological cause behind evolution (except perhaps human teleological causes in cases of selective breeding); the questions of “why” could pertain more to evolutionary pressures behind various adaptations/trajectories (at particular points in time), and questions of “how” could pertain more to the mechanisms through which evolution occurs.
I always connected the "lizard brain" to the area of the brain that controls our emotions, hence why we are driven to action through our emotions. Also known as the amygdala. So many of us live our lives under control of the amygdala instinct, unaware of how our emotions govern our actions, when in reality it should be the other way around. Our actions, or our mind controlling our emotions. To be aware of this is to realize that at any giving moment, our bodies respond to our environment in a very "animal" way, prompting our brains to think equal to our environment. This part of our brain hasnt evolved because we have all stayed stuck in enjoying the benefits of fight and flight adrenaline response that we all live with on a daily basis now. If we can learn to rewire our thought process eventually over time, we wont need to be so wired all the time, and quite possibly unlock different mental capacities that have been burried deep inside our brains. Could it be that we use a very limited capacity of our brain power for this reason? Until we learn to let go of anamocity, we will never evolve into something more.
yeah, we always seek an explanation for something bad that cause something what we don't want(essensially something that torture us) . how will it be, if we just accept everything, and tolerating it?
i've always heard it refered to as a "reptile brain," not a "lizard brain." this is literally the first context i've heard the latter used. that being said, mammals did come from reptiles, so the metaphor is still apt.
That is if we count early synapsids as being actual reptiles. Personally I doubt it since they were all far closer to us genetically than to any modern animal we classify as a 'reptiles'. Birds evolved from reptiles, that is very clear, but I'm not that sure about mammals doing the same.
Its still not apt become reptiles are not simple instinct machines from which mammals then humans progressed. Lizards and other reptiles have evolved well past that initial reptilian ancestor and their brains are closer to that of birds than mammals. None of these animals lack the structures for higher level thought. Humans are unique in terms of our intelligence in the sense that it is just that much more advanced than any animal-but reptiles, birds, and mammals all have structures (albeit different ones) for intelligent higher level thought.
As a killer main, I always let one survivor live and started to enjoy the game when I stopped caring about killing survivors and just playing for fun and not going on chases if I dont enjoy them
So, according to her it doesn't make sense if we using their 'evolution' of us coming from fish? But everything else should be good; right? But as everyone has mentioned below, its a concept/perspective to understand our we operate, interally and externally. It makes more sense unstanding the triune brain like this then other ways of explanations.
Lizard brain just alludes to the oldest or most primitive part of the brain. As far as I know. I never knew people thought that we had literally lizard’s brains
I didn’t know Carl Sagan came up with it or whatever, but that’s not how most people use that term today. It’s just a metaphor for the primitive survival mechanisms we still carry, not just from our animal origins, but also from the pre-modern era. It’s usually just a more visceral way of accusing someone of being dumb, controlled by fear, controlled by greed, or all of the above. Most people using the term are just trying to make a point or get a reaction.
The idea that "an animal to suddenly hunt and that's why brains evolved" passes the explanatory buck by taking for granted that such a first decisive animal wouldn't have needed a brain to make the decision.. not a good basis for explaining emergence. Terrance Deacon offers an empirically testable model for the emergence of mind.
OK sure...but when we lay people say lizard brain we don't mean we literally have a lizard's brain, we mean our primordial brain we inherited from our ancient non-human ancestors...maybe that's incorrect, too...but that's what we mean. 🥴
That's literally they idea they're debunking. you didnt inherit a primordial brain from non human ancestors, as that implies they themselves inherited a primordial brain from their ancestors, and so on and so on until oh, we all inherited part of our brain from lizards. no. each organism has a brain that wired and rewired through every single generation a new thing, wired for that organism, and no part of it, no section is a primordial part. every generation, every organism has a brain that is wired for that organism, and not some other organism, not a lizard, not a primordial ancestor, not a fish, just that organism.
Having sat in community mental health classes telling me we have Lizard brains I am so glad to hear someone challenging this ie we don't have lizard brains because we aren't evolved from lizards! Good grief! I can now refer people to this video.
We absolutely evolved from creatures anyone today would call lizards if they saw them IRL. And you seem to have miss the point. This video did nothing to address the concepts that this "story" teaches. It does NOT say the brain stem isn't responsible for basic metabolic functions, the limbic isn't isn't primarily responsible for emotions. The conclusion it makes about the about the development time of the cerebral cortex is gibberish. We don't really end up with a bigger cerebral cortex it just looks that way because it develops for longer into a bigger thing?
@@donaldbest1154 yeah I didn't understand the point of that last bit... like what does it mean it "looks like" we have bigger prefrontal cortexes compared to the rest of our brains? Does that mean it's an optical illusion or something?
I might have misunderstood but like I’m no biologist but it seems like we definitely can know why something evolved? Like plants evolved leaves because leaves make photosynthesizing more efficient. That seems pretty unambiguous to me. I’m sure there’s plenty of other complex reasons but photosynthesizing seems like the main reason, and answers the why question
This is teleological, and puts the cart before the horse. This assumes evolution has a goal. It doesn't. There's no end point to evolution, there's no intention or design. All It has is a filter. Things that don't pass on their genes, by surviving their environment, stop existing and don't continue to evolve. Something that is advantageous to survival, like for instance having a mutation that creates a protein that randomly causes some conformation that grants a 0.01% boost to energy production, might give a slight boost to the chance that thing survives. repeat that a billion times and what started as a random mutation to a protien conformation has led to complex cellular machinery that converts sunlight into sugars. organisms, and evolution itself, didn't start out with photosynthesis in mind. it merely started with survival in mind, where it ended up, shaped by the environment, was not predetermined at the outset.
It's semantics. The "why", used in a technical and philosophical sense, asks for a "purpose" as an answer. Purposes are ends that humans attribute to their actions in order to explain their cause. And "end" is a "telos" in Greek, therefore, "teleology". In this strict sense, there is no telos in evolution, just because evolution is a natural "mechanism" (so to speak), not a person, nor a intelect that would be able to "plan ahead" or show "purpose". This is why we say evolution has no goal. But that doesn't mean it has nothing driving it. It has, it is called "survival" (and replication as well). Not that evolution "wants" survival. But only that the mechanism is such that changes of genotype can only occur in systems that survive and maxime their capacity to survive, obviously. Therefore, the appearance of design that we see in evolved living organism has an explanation in such mechanism. In this sense, some people may say that we know "why" the design of a leaf, for instance, is the way it is, in the sense that we know the CAUSE of such design, and not that we picture evolution as having PURPOSE. In a not so technical sense, you are correct, because we do know "why" the design is as it is, since to know the cause of the design is to know "why" the organism came to have the particular phenotype that it has. You see, the "why" that I used in the above sentence is not employed in a very precise sense. But this is not a sin. People do talk about causation in terms of "why", and they do this without intending "intentional purpose", at least not in a human and psychological way. If you stick with common use of language, it is not entirely wrong to say that we know "why" the design of a leaf is as it is, cause we can trace the causes, based on our knowledge of the (blind) drives of evolution. Now, if you keep using "why" in this common and not so technical way, and then watch this video, and reaches the conclusion that we don't know "why" a specific design is the way it is, then you would wrong. Cause we do know "why". See, it is semantics.
@@fluxo_musical that's all well and good, but i will just add, some people really do mean "why" in the former sense when they say it and it can range from just funny at best to socially damaging at worst lol
While the concept may be scientifically inaccurate, the metaphor has utility in the field of psychotherapy. By describing emotional and physical dysregulation as originating from an older part of the brain the experience of dysregulation may be normalized and put in context rather than judged or shamed. Escalation and agitation are normal parts of brain function, and with the application of a few simple skills we can learn to give our rational brain time to engage and improve outcomes in relationships and interactions. My staff actively and deliberately teach clients that they have a lizard brain, it's important, it's o.k. to have one, and when we keep our "evolved brain" in the drivers seat we become more effective agents in a host of situations. We get good results with this approach.
yeah, we always seek an explanation for something bad that cause something what we don't want(essensially something that torture us) . how will it be, if we just accept everything, and tolerating it?
Actually I think it's harmful to therapy, because it's based on a consequential misconception: it labels (strong) emotions as primitive and negative, and rational thought as superior, when actually the whole brain has evolved, including the "primitive" "old" parts of the brain. It has been shown that when people entirely lose emotions they make *worse* decisions. A lot of problems cannot be solved purely logically. All parts of the brain have a function, instead of controlling "primitive" parts of the brain, and letting the "rational" part take over and dominate the rest, we should broaden our focus and listen to more voices in our brain. The issue is tunnel vision, not the emotions we feel. Another rational form of tunnel vision is not better, it's equally limited.
It's actually a harmful fallacy to keep teaching that in therapy: all parts of your brain have a useful function, numbing some out / controlling them will not make you see clearer. What you want to do is broaden your tunnel vision, not replace it with "rational" kind of tunnel vision. The shame and judgement of (strong) emotional responses comes from ignorance and a morale view that is simplistic. Alleviating that shame with another misunderstanding is not helpful. It has been shown that many problems cannot be decided purely logically, and that people with no emotions will get stuck. Tunnel vision is what creates issues, replacing it with a "rational" kind of tunnel view is not improving things, it's limiting you in other ways.
Gosh, I hope this video blows up. The pervasive use of the triune brain myth in the modern day is really frustrating. We absolutely need to, as a society, do away with the notion that logic and emotion are in contention with one another in the brain and the triune brain myth's long running history is the main contributor to that false idea.
How exactly would you tackle helping someone with an anger based impulse control issue. Would you tell them their rational and emotional selves were not really in conflict? What would you say to them as they reported watching in horror as they lost control of themselves and did and said things they regretted AS they knew they were about to do them? Myth is not a false story but one that contains truth rather than is true. This myth does not create this inner experience it just seeks to explain it.
@@donaldbest1154 I wouldn't tackle that at all, because I'm not a professional expert. This isn't a question to ask a layperson. What I do know, is that I'm quite confident that professional experts would be operating much more efficiently if they were developing their methodologies based on updated accurate models of the human brain, instead of falling back on outdated models. The fact of the matter is, that all the recent research in neurology and emotion shows that there is no fundamental separation between rationality and emotion. They are intrinsically linked to one another and all actions and behaviors come down stream from our instances of emotion and the concepts that our brains use to run predictions and interpret data. What good is does it do to explain someone's experience using a model of their brain that is completely false?
Not quite. Amygdala hijack is a real phenomenon and is exactly what propaganda purposely triggers so you are more suggestible. They don't call it "propaganda " any more, though. It's advertising or public relations. Watch a few videos on the science behind this and you start to see why so many of us are angry, depressed and anxious with little impulse control. Being in a frequent threat response does not lead you to greater heights of critical thinking, but instead to increased irrationality.
@@donaldbest1154 I would have the intelligence to use a better metephor than one that propagates myth, superstition, religious ideology or other hokum. And I'd avoid relying of argumentation from lack of imagination as some kind of rationality to persist in ignorance.
@@Aaron.Thomas We are clearly concerned about different areas of ignorance. I am not concerned with truth on some ideal level. You can't just say you would replace practical tools you need to actually do it. Or I consider your enlightenment darkness.
Thanks for saying knowledge is theory and stories, best guesses as opposed to truth. Ideas. And if a bunch of people get together and present an idea - it’s just that. A bunch of people got together. There may be other bunches of people with different ideas. They just weren’t allowed to voice theirs. Thank You.
I am pretty sure that most people know we didn’t evolve from lizards but it’s just a metaphor/ harmless misnomer. The sun also doesn’t rise in the morning and most people know that but it’s just what we call that event.
Um, pretty sure "lizard brain" is a metaphor for the fight/flight survival instinct inherent in lizards, but it's not meant literally. And this is "Big Thinking"? o,O Um...
No, no: the terms was used because it was initially supposed that the structure was shared with that of lizards indicating a common evolutionary origin. Nowadays, the term can be used to indicate a “simple and instinctual way of thinking”, but the majority of people (in the academic field too, unfortunately) think that the meaning is still literal
Well, I would say: Metaphors are never _exact_ of course, otherwise they wouldn't be metaphors after all, right? But, if we analyse metaphors just for their quality of more accurately and ingeniously representing reality seen from a specific domain (such as the scientific domain in general), it should be possible to evaluate if a metaphor is _better_ or _worse_ , for the interests of such particular context. This certainly doesn't mean we should discard metaphors at all, but we should always try to develop better, more insightful ones, according to the context.
I’m pretty disappointed by this video, but I guess this is just a case of language evolving. “Lizard brain” has become a more casual term compared to its old definition. Most of us are familiar with the new definition and didn’t know the history behind it. So… I feel misled by the title, even if it is accurate. Actually, now I’m wondering if we’re the right audience for the actual explanation in the video.
And the competition between bacteria didn’t spawn and arms race? I don’t have a better explanation for the evolution of a brain, other than the obvious evolution of sensory organs, but suggesting it was competition that started it makes her sound unintelligent. I’m sure it’s a lack of context and her inaccurate effort at simplifying the concept.
For therapeutic purposes, the triune brain serves a metaphorical purpose - and in part, is felt internally as experientially having value to make sense of our lived experience & different motivations. However, in modern CBT, in particular CFT, there is more of a recognition of our various motivations, and uses a metaphor for our drive-threat & soothing systems. Lisa's theory is quite a physically reductionist model? Mere thoughts...
I would argue that it's not a useful metaphorical concept, but what she's pointing out is that the concept of the triune brain is not a metaphor. This is a real neurological model that has existed for 50 years. And it has been the leading model of the human brain for far too long, because it's not accurate. It doesn't even come close to describing how the human brain evolved, how it develops, or how it processes sense data. I don't think it's useful to use metaphorical concepts that draw on a truncated representation of the human brain. I think we are more than capable of coming up with metaphors that map onto modern models of how the human brain functions without sacrificing any efficacy in their application
@@meech3576 I don't even need to, because Big Think released another video last week with the same researcher, Lisa Feldman Barrett, explaining emotions better than I ever could. Don't fall into the trap of believing that every person that identifies the inefficacy of something must also be the one to identify the solution. It's an unreasonable way to approach the concept of problem solving. In fact, I'd recommend you engage with all of LFB's work, as she has a litany of brilliant metaphors for the brain as a modern model.
@@meech3576 additionally, I don't think you give your fellow sapiens enough credit, if you think we need oversimplified metaphors that function on an outdated model to explain this stuff to laypeople. People aren't stupid. They're underinformed
It seems that selective evolutionary pressures at some point have an almost cascade effect which in the finished product looks like a bunch of puzzle pieces that obviously couldn't go together any other way. This is obviously a biased view, however when you take into account for instance the scaling laws (lifespan vs. number of heartbeats in said life) and then apply the average which is about 1 and a half million heartbeats across the board for mammals things get kind of weird, to me at least, because I can't help myself but to ask why? Why do we get the same number of heartbeats as a mouse who gets the same number of heartbeats as an elephant but our lifespans are vastly different? Convergent evolution is fascinating and odd. How far down can it go? With the last few years of discovery, quantum properties have been brought to light in biology as well. Is there a discovery waiting to be made in the future about quantum convergence? Okay I need to go take some aspirin. My head is killing me now.
@@thedanielfuentes that's kinda true, I guess. mimetics state something similar, I believe. It's not the best ideas that get past on, but the most replicable.
Didn’t mammals evolve from synapsids? And synapsids evolve from reptiles? Like correct me if I’m wrong but reptiles and mammals didn’t split off when life first grew legs and walked on land.
Synapsids and reptiles evolved separately from a basal amnoite very soon after the amniote egg evolved. They are sister clades. The reptile (saurapsid) and synapsids lines evolved seperately from a common ancestor.
I don't think this video did anything to refute - whatever it is she thinks she is refuting. Often times scientists cherry pick and only notice what isn't working about a common understanding of a thing and argue against it's flaws without honoring OR replacing the utility of this understanding. This video is guilty of that. Of course - for instance our motor control needed to evolve with our changing bodies. So if people think that simply because our expanded cerebral cortex is where the hominid action mostly was. Its not hard to point out that some parts of tool use required changes deeper down. It doesn't just look like mice have a smaller cerebral cortex they do all that extra time results in a much larger brain to body mass and much larger cerebrals cortex verses the rest.... Her statements seem less accurate than any misconception she is trying to debunk. Genetics debunks the tripart brain because of development times??? We don't have lizard brains because our first amniote ancestors (who meet any lay persons idea of a lizard exactly) weren't technically lizards from a scientists point of view you need to understand jargon like post orbital fenestra's to understand. I say leave science communication to people like Carl Sagan and stop trying to contradict him. When you show your ignorance of common sense you look like a fool legitimately.
@@freedombro6502 Nope. Didn't say that. Dude said she's showing her ignorance, and I can assure you she's not ignorant. Having read her books, many of the papers her lab has published, and watched hours of lectures and interviews about her research, I'm much more confident that to lay the blame on Big Think for poor editing. Especially given that they're a pop sci publication. Lisa Feldman Barrett is doing her best to increase the PR and better the public understanding around neuroscientific concepts that have gone wildly misunderstood for a long time. Emotions being the big one. Triune brain myth has a lot to do with that. So, it makes sense that she'd do a few video segments for Big Think to try and further disseminate her lab's research.
@@rowanaster3986 This has no relevance to the question of this as successful peace of communication to the general public. She probably benefits greatly from the peer review process. Your appeal to authority is not logical response.
I will continue to refer to my instinctive side as my lizard brain. It cant really be short circuited at that level it can only be adapted at the higher levels after much work, and even then it just reduces the signal it doesnt override it.
I find it interesting that in this universe it's basically impossible for good things to happen without any harm or suffering first having happened at some time somewhere. This is the case even for the existence of the brain itself. Things like sight and being able to perceive and enjoy music may REQUIRE a specific set of laws of physics, and maybe couldn't exist in another universe... Or maybe not even exist if we evolved differently. I am so curious about what intelligent aliens would be like if they exist!
Semantic strawman. Yes, people say "lizard brain", but we know that they're not literally referring to lizards, they're referring to the reptile ancestors of mammals. We can even see this in the newspaper clipping shown at about 2:15 in, that say "reptiles" and not "lizards". Also, reptiles and mammals did not evolve from fish. Mammals evolved from reptiles, reptiles evolved from amphibians, and amphibians evolved from bony fishes. So, she uses a misleading strawman, and gets the basics of The evolutionary tree wrong, so how am I supposed to trust anything else she says?
More fun evolutionary sorry is that we have big brains to impress our mates, and ideal mate. Hunting and avoiding hunters isn't actually that big a deal, in space-time measures, but monkeying around with others is a constant preoccupation. Still think there's something to be gained by noticing the way the anatomy of the brain is organised about different levels of 'abstraction'.
Now I'd be really curious to hear from an evolutionary biologist who clearly has more to say about this than a psychologist or an astrophysicist. Maybe, dr. Shubin?
Predation certainly nurtured it, but I think even early multi cell creatures with proto eyes started the path to evolving the brain. The enteric nervous system had already been around a while, and gee I’d like to see that discussed more.
Good point! There was a lot of evolution at very small scales for things like controlling digestion or perhaps sensing environmental threats before the 'arms race' that began about 500 million years ago.
Here's a neat diagram that goes into the evolution from microorganisms: www.scientificamerican.com/article/your-brain-evolved-from-bacteria/
And a little more detail from Feldman Barrett: www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-did-we-evolve-brains-in-the-first-place
I ❤ U guys!
@@bigthink thank you very much. Much appreciated!
Exactly, and those "primitive" sensory organs were also nurtured bij predation. Early multicellular life needed these organs to escape predators and locate food (predation also applies to heterotrophs eating autotrophs).
Next to predation i think general environment was a big part in developing sensory organs. Even single-celled life has ways to escape environments that contain toxins to them.
Interesting... I always thought "lizard brain" was just a metaphor for what we would consider our basest, most primal animal urges and instincts.
Big Think gets amazing guests and then gives these ridiculous click bait titles
Same tbh didn't know people meant in a literal sense until now.
What's next? Butterflies not containing butter? What's it called again if one takes everything literal..
Same here
same. never thought it suggested a literal vestigial lizard brain
I always assumed "lizard brain" was just shorthand or metaphor to refer to an older, more primitive part of the brain. I didn't realize some people were taking it literally and that it had become canon...🤣🤔🤯
There are snake breeders who actually believe this sort of stuff, and use it to excuse giving their animals 0 enrichment or ability to make choices throughout their lives. ''They don't have thoughts, emotions, and can't learn... they run on pure instincts!''
I mean... yeah no kidding your snake will seem brain-dead when it lives in a barren box, unable to do anything ever, and has no brain stimulation in the slightest.
No that metaphor is the myth that is debunked in the video namely that one somehow a lizard's brain is more primitive and two that some older brain that we humans have is from lizards.
Using the definition on people who are on top of us who make their luxurious living on us is a faulty idea, since these ppl are above us, squeezing every drop of life out of us common folks, designing our future; engineering society however bad that is for us. Being able to control this many humans speaks about more intelligence than just flight or fight. Life is beautiful but it's not fair at all. It is cruel sometimes and the world wasn't founded on compassion either.
It is, I think she's just an idiot. I've never heard of someone actually thinking that's physically how it goes in the brain, like before we get to be Kids, as babies we would still have a "Lizard Brain". That's not how anyone thinks, Ma'am.
I don't think they do and I don't think it has. I fervently hope so. Because that take hinders a nice talk about this topic very much. Anyway gotta run, bake in the sun, catch some bugs.
Sea Squirts are born with a brain, they use it to find a nice place to live where they attach themselves, and then they proceed to digest their brain, spine, and eyes because they don't need them anymore. This was something that I always found interesting.
That's crazy. Similar to suicide yet they still live.
That's stunning
Ok what??? That is incredible! I need to look that up!
That really much describes the way of life for many people, who get stuck in their social media bubble.
Domestic cats do something similar as they grow into adult cats they will get rid of their excess neurons that are not being used. That is, they are born with more neurons than they will have as adult cats.
Maybe I happened to get exposed to the correct neuroscience, but I always thought of the triune brain as a metaphor to help memorize where basic behavioral and perceptual functioning occurs.
@hanskrieger4299should be top comment
@hanskrieger4299 wut? dragonflies aren't dragons?
@hanskrieger4299
Actually mammals did not evolve from reptiles.
@hanskrieger4299dinosaurs are reptiles. And so are mammals btw
It absolutely is. These people are just not as smart as they think they are
Im a reptile keeper and enthusiast. Ive got 30 snakes and 5 geckos. Im not gonna pretend theyre on the level of a dog or human. But there is much more going on up there than what is traditionally believed. You don't survive for 100 million years virtually unchanged if you're a big old dummy. And they react differently to different people, They recognize their owner versus a stranger, and learn from past experience. And some of them you looking in their eyes and you can tell that the wheels are turning, that they are figuring things out. Glad to see that this myth of the reptile brain is finally being debunked in the mainstream, It's 150-year-old theory that was invented by a guy who believed humans were not animals, and worked backwards from that conclusion. We need to start giving animals the respect they deserve because viewing them as these beings wholly dependent on instinct is doing us and them a great disservice
Very well said!
😅
what do we do if animal can speak(just really speak(for thought) as toddler would surprising) and then do farm(some animal do simple farm) ?
Lizard brain just means our base instincts.
That's so interesting! Our crew recently portraited the sperm whale brain, which is the biggest within the animal kingdom. And it's so fascinating to see how this plays a big role not only in genetic evolution but also in cultural evolution, which made them able to outsmart hunters in the past.
Isn’t the “sperm” they were harvesting to make oil in the head, near the brain? I was just listening to a podcast about the Essex, but it was more comedy than science.
I would like to hear more about those brainless "stomach on a stick" animals. They sounded fascinating.
Lancelets, of the family amphioxus.
You can find out everything you need to know about Amphiouxus, just go to your nearest trump rally.... They'll be wearing red hats...
I feel called out!
Imagine studying so many brains as a neuroscientist, and getting so tired of it... that your favourite animal has no brain at all
swimming worms basically
"They're just little stomachs on a stick." I took that personally.
What are you a worm?
stomachs on a stick. coming soon to a State Fair near you!
Well, cause Cows are out here solving Math problems, right?
So if I understand this correctly, we don't have lizard brains . . . we have fish brains
😂
Lol, I thought the same.
im pretty sure the take away was we have horse brains right?
No U
You’re doing God’s work. You saved me 7min of my life.
If Carl Sagan had learned he was wrong about the triune brain model (or about anything else, really) he likely would have accepted the correction, gratefully, because this is science not religion.
Sagan is the father of the new age scientism religion that pundits like Shill Nye, Neil Degreaser Tyson, and Steven Faking spew out. They will say the science is settled until they are proven wrong and then act like they never said anything definitive. Carl Sagan was a scientist, but he was a performer more than anything
the inclination to patronize & "prove wrong" the very giants upon whose shoulders today's scientists stand has made for a very spoiled laboratory environment! 💚I'd rather be a dragon in Eden or a charioteer than a lab-grown brain talking about itself.
@@CattleyaHicksthe shoulders of what? Pro slavery dummies like jesus who thought the flu was a desert jhin that needed to be exorcized? Religious ppl have been murdering scientists and retarding human progress non stop for thousands of years. We have progressed *IN SPITE OF* religious lunatics.
Quite honestly, I'm even amazed he defended such an absurd theory to begin with, but yes I am sure, he would have corrected himself. But this is a good reminder that, people should stay in their lanes and not stray away to other topics they are not familiar with.
@@herlandercarvalho was he really pushing it super hard or was he like yeah my buddies in that field talked to me about this and it was convincing at the time?
I’m glad she was honest about what we can and cannot know
tho still she implied her own conclusion at the end.. :D
@@mariusskrupskis2042 Lisa Feldman has 30 years in the field of neuroscience. I believe she is pretty much qualified to imply conclusions, unlike the self-help gurus who insist on the lizard brain theory.
@@mariusskrupskis2042 i'm glad she at least explicitly put it as a philosophical opinion prefaced with "we can't know why". in my opinion it's a bad take though lol, if not just for the reason that humans evolved communally, not solitarily - like, communities of humans were in competition with other communities, not individual humans all in competition with each other, and as such, the important part biologically would be the traits circulating around the community's general gene pool getting passed down, including traits that lead to variance within the community, including members who wouldn't individually reproduce
I always thought lizards brain was like a metaphor. Didn't think it was thought to be real.
probs to the guys who technically produced the interview. Setting is awesome and the fact the the windows are not clipped - such a satisfaction to watch.
I've read her book how emotions are made and it was amazing
Same same it was a great book
Read some negative reviews on this book
@@trappart9209on any given day, she is the most (or within the top 5) quoted scientists in the world. She's top of her field. People in that spot always get criticism from below.
@@trappart9209that's always a given...
@@tmtb80 she shut down my open mind with the quib about people not having actual lizard brains. To me that's on par with creationists scoffing evolution because there're still monkeys around, at which time I turn away and let them be. Your comment makes me now think/hope it was a quib. I'll pry open my mind and take in some more of her words.
Every time you are presented with a challenge, think of it as a choice point. These moments are precious opportunities. Life will get more interesting if you evolve along the way. You already know the old tune. Ask yourself if it is time for a new one.
Paulo Coehlo said, “Never allow waiting to become a habit. Live your dreams and take risks. Life is happening now.”
The term "lizard brain" should probably rather be "lizard-like amniote brain", as the split between Archosauriae (crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, birds) and Lepidosauriae (lizards, snakes, comodo dragons et.al.) happened much later (around 245 million years ago) than the split between Diapsida (which include all the former groups) and Synapsida, of which mammals are the last surviving group (around 310 million years ago).
Just beautiful!
Listening to her, her words; the music was just beautiful, I would sit next to her and listen to her all day.
What I find fascinating about brains and nervous systems are those of octopi. Yes there is a central brain, but about 2/3rds of its neurons are located in its arms. Which to me means that its neural system is more like a conductor leading an orchestra or perhaps a combination of centrally located sensory and response with semi independent distributed sensory and response apparatus. The accepted hallmarks of intelligence are very much present in octopi (puzzle solving, manipulation of the local environment and so on) that I wonder how their neural system has allowed them to develop these behavioral abilities. The other thing that I find curious about octopi is the combination of radial and lateral symmetry. Another item that I am curious about with octopi are the suckers on their tentacles. Surely these must have some purpose other than grasping objects. If they are a sensory organ, what are they sensing? Note: I am trying very hard to avoid the computer analogies as I do not wish to try to explain something by using an analogy of analogy.
People don't say "lizard brain" to literally mean the brain of a lizard. They say it to represent the parts of the brain that represent structures and operations that are rudimentary and likely evolved first.
what i learned is that mice shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun until they are 60 days old
“Lizard brain” is literally just referring to how our brain is hierarchically structured. You have the most basic nervous system which regulates homeostasis, you have slightly higher stuff like motion planning, and then you have things like instincts, drives urges. The “lizard brain” is those last ones. This title is like saying it’s a myth that Spider-Man could make web shoot out of his arms. No one actually thinks we have a lizard brain inside of our actual brain
This Video has a lot of "ACSHUALLY" energy
In my country we don't have lizard brain, we have shirmp brain.
Otak udang 😭
The whole lizard brain thing is always kinda weird because the implications is that's where all your basic instincts are but lizards definitely react to situation with more than just pure instincts (like lizards can be taught to tolerate handling for example. That's knowledge they gained over time rather than something they had from birth).
I feel like almost all land animal can be trained it's sea creatures tha are rare. I don't know why that is
Yes, technically we don't have lizard brains because they're not part of our evolutionary tree. But, we had some lizard like ancestors in the form of the Synapsids during the Permian era. I think "lizard brain" is referring to a very early lizard like land animal that is also a common ancestor with mammals. This ancestor would share brain features with only part of our brain which is the "lizard brain".
I agree. Also mammals also evolved from amphibians
I think Aron would be proud of you.
Still incorrect. The reptile brain and mammal brain are very different. It's like saying a car is a simpler form of an airplane. The bird brain is very different from the mammalian brain, yet some birds are very smart. Of course, birds are technically reptiles.
Animals are good at the things they need to be good at and subsequently have the brain they need.
@@grisflyt saying birds are technically reptiles is like saying mammals are technically amphibians
@@realtalk5329That seems to be the joke. In a realm where the earth was mostly covered in water, the species that can navigate such an environment is going to be predominantly amphibian
But the point is that as mammals came into being, there would be traces of their genetic being that stem back to amphibious physiology. As in the reproductive system had not developed into the placenta base that mammals are known for
The triune brain is only a model people, to help explain the evolution of automatic/survival brain, social/emotional brain and rational/calculating/planning brain. I originally heard automatic/survival brain called dinosaur brain. Just a neat idea that everyone understands
Yeah listening to her debunking this she doesn’t explain well the counter model.. it makes evolutionary sense to have a part of the brain that operates the autonomic nerves first and then further evolving emotions that drive more action and further evolving emotions that drive rational thought to survive in the world .. i don’t understand the point of this video honestly.. there’s no new insight here.. just a neuroscientist telling me the old model is wrong
@@MrPelham32fully agree. This video brings nothing to the table other than a person "debunking a myth" which wasn't a myth to begin with.
@@LeBionArc Yup i agree she isnt really replacing the old modle with something new, it seems like just semantics to me
The myth, supposedly, is that each system evolved independentntly and in order from lower to higher on the brain stem. I am not sure if MacLean actually thought that to be the case., but even so, there are people influenced by MacLean who do not view it in those terms. But the video seems to want to throw out the idea that these structures are homologous in some degree is a bit too much. it is like saying that dog legs and lizard legs are not at all similar.
It's really strange that she's presenting an argument as if she's taking a metaphor literally.
It's completely ridiculous
"And so the brain wondered: What was the brain good for?" -brain
When people say "lizard brain" I dont think they mean literally, I think they are referring to the simple prehistoric part of the brain which does all the basic stuff.
Exactly
So when you say there was an originating predator-prey moment, for a creature that can't think or make choices, was it just a matter of happenstance? It went to eat its "normal" diet, ingested something different by accident, then the circuitry got rewired to seek out the new thing because it was more energy efficient or whatever, and that snowballed into brains forming and gradually becoming more complex over time?
Agreed
I think it was just random beneficial mutations that were selected for because they helped the animal prey on others and helped that animal avoid becoming prey themselves, and as these mutations built up the animals grew larger and more complex bodies and those bigger bodies needed more co-ordination
@@dinosaurb I don't buy it. How can an unintelligible, unguided, random process result in a thinking brain with consciousness? And then further more, how could you trust your own rationality if it were all the result of "randomness and mutations"?
@@mitchelltj1 well, we've just been very lucky, apparently.
@@mitchelltj1 I mean, the way you criticize this idea it seems you aren't seeing the whole picture. Billions, maybe even trillions of these creatures over millions of years. Something fascinating is bound to happen. I'm sure there is more to the story, but this is a pretty simplistic explanation that people can understand and digest. No pun intended. LOL.
Feldman barret’s iconoclastic thinking ; gotta love her
i recently started reading a book called the courage to be disliked which talks about teleology and trauma, and it’s a fascinating link to our purpose and goal.
we’re capable of continuously evolving as this video shows. and i think a huge stage in that human evolution is emotional intelligence and self awareness.
i highly recommend the book to anyone familiar with sigmand freud and even carl jung’s work. because it actually brings to light the work of a third prominent psychologist named alfred adler, who i think hasn’t been recognized as much. his work holds the key to how we can take charge of our own story and grow despite our past traumas and conditionings.
Name of the book pls?
@@Vantablvklegend4 Bot?
I watched video on three layers of brain just two days ago and now this pops up-
Yeah me too. The other one is from Robert Sapolsky whom I'm a big fan of
Huh? Mammals and reptiles evolved from land dwelling basal amniotes, not fish! We needed to lay eggs on land, this ability didn’t evolve separately in the mammalian and reptile lines, it evolved once. these amniotes were already quite different from fish and basically reptiles. We of course have fish ancestors but also reptile ancestors.
Carl Sagan never said that we have "lizard brains". In fact, modern reptiles and mammals both evolved from reptilian like animals (Reptiliomorpha and Amniota), back in the late carboniferous períod, 318 million years ago. Moreover, evolution has showed to the extent of exhaustion, that novel structures have to evolve by coopting preexisting ones. It's one of the basic principles underlying embryology and development.
That was refreshing. She sounds like a verifiable scientist. In Buddhism, we practice letting go to all ego attachments which can be, "I have the answers!" We practice awareness and accept that all of reality is a projection from the mind.
But somethings are tangible and not creations of the mind
@@freedombro6502 read “The Master and His Emissary” and then any Oliver Sachs. The way we experience reality and actual reality are two very different things. Yes things are both tangible and real. And no, that doesn’t mean we experience them as some kind of objective reality.
I use this metaphor a lot to explain perception. Two guys in the woods. One is a park ranger, the other guy is a first timer in the wilderness. It’s the exact same stimuli for both men, with two dramatically different responses, even physiologically. The ranger knows to be cautious, and avoids the bear with experience. The other guy might have a complete adrenaline dump and freeze or run. The way we experience tangible reality is often in a manner very different from our fellow humans.
@@dianelipson5420its so annoying when clueless ppl like you think youre saying something profound.. when in reality youre just huffing your own farts
@@dianelipson5420 It's not easy to be objective about our own sense of Reality. It may even be impossible.
@@markhathaway9456 oh absolutely. It’s one of those things where we must rely heavily on science for the facts. Science is our objectivity, and it too is flawed. The way the news reports unconfirmed studies trouble me. To even come close to scientific objectivity we must have multiple confirmations on the results of studies, whenever possible. Without at least one confirmation, how can we regard unrepeated results as fact?
I like brain stuff, so I just bought her book on audible, will be interested to hear it.
The flip side is that I'm wondering if the "debunking" critique here is substantive, in that it seems to rest on the point that modern reptiles have structures in their brain that are homologous to non-reptile parts of the human brain. However, if they're homologous but also not comparable in terms of function while the so-called "lizard brain" is similar between humans and reptiles, then one could still defend the use of the term "lizard brain."
I don't see how this explanation (very interesting nonetheless) go against the lizard brain theory, that I understand as: "there's a part of our brains dedicated to basic survival and urges". Please correct me if I'm wrong and enlighten me about this
I felt like she was insisting in the the wrongness of the "lizard brain" hypothesis, because "we don't have the brain of a lizard"... well, yeah . The triune brain is supposed to be a model to explain differences in the brain, but just a model. Nobody said that we literally have a lizard brain inside of us.... that's weird.
That was my feeling as well.
i think the point here would most favourably be that there isn't one "part" of the brain dedicated to those things, but rather that they're more just traits that are part of the overall brain soup and are not untouched nor separate from our more recently evolved traits. also i've seen some people use "lizard brain" as an excuse to armchair-psychoanalyse subconscious intent in behaviours which have much simpler and more self-evident explanations that don't require imagining the presence of invisible ulterior motives that can't be proven
i will say though, at the end, while she gives a reasonable preface about not knowing the reasons i.e. the causes for certain things to evolve and we can only philosophically speculate based on function, i think the conclusion she reaches from that point of "the ultimate job is to pass on your genes" is still a bad take in how weirdly prescriptive it is lol, just not as bad as when people imply that literally every action we take is subconsciously driven by a lizard brain desire to reproduce (anyway i said this in another comment but humans evolved communally, not solitarily, i.e. communities were in competition with other communities, much less so individual humans in competition with each other, so for certain traits to be passed down it would not have been necessary for every individual with those traits to reproduce, but rather their community as a whole do well and continue on, in which there was some chance of having those traits circulating around the general gene pool)
Lizards can be quite intelligent. Tegus and Savanah monitors are two of several large lizards that make wonderful, if high-maintenance, pets. They can bond with their owners and can even play with toys.
Some lizards are more social creatures than once thought possible. Some pair bond, some live in burrows with extended family members.
Reptiles deserve more respect than we give them.
My experience was more with salvator monitors and heloderma, but consistent with your statement. They seek out the company of the humans in their lives.
yeah, Exothermic animals are more efficient in their internal metabolic processes, this does not mean that they are more intelligent, high top-tier predator or prey, or complex than endothermic animals.
maybe a question, if metabolic efficiency is the fundamental biological rate that governs most observed patterns in ecology, then what happen with reptile ? how does the contrary happen with human(endothermic organisms)?
is the fundamental biological rate, are not really connected with the complexity of brain?
Brains watching a brain talking about brains.
my mans over here be lookin at memes and goin "um ackchyually"
3 weeks earlier The Well channel posted video which is called You have 3 brains by Robert Sapolsky.
I know right, what's going on here?
Let them fight.
good point that mammals and lizards evolved at nearly the same time from a common ancestor same with dinosaurs/birds
Did anyone ever think we actually have a brain from a lizard built it?! 😂 ... I think the idea was that the functions of the brain are layered from basic/ vital/ automatic to advanced higher functions that we vontrol at will.
yes I think we all understood it as a metaphor for that, right?
@@saskiascott8181 ... That's why I was wondering what exactly was being debunked ... When we all know we don't have a brain like that of a lizard.
There may be an important difference between the parts of neural systems that have pre-programmed less-changeable pathways created by ancestral DNA, and the neural systems that can change and store memory...possibly related to differences in synapse chemistry. Knowing how this works might help to improve human behavior and learning.
She is a beast and ahead of her time. If you read her, most psychological theories become obsolete.
The brain is definitely a predictive entity, learning that changed the way I look at the world.
Keep it up. 😊
This absolutely doesn't mean thought processing doesn't function in layers of priority. It just means it isn't physically layered (i.e. is not in layers made of DNA of different "tenure"). It is equivalently the same in output as in the physically layered model.
I don't feel compelled to pass my jeans along. I use them, patch and repair as needed, then trash them.
Our leading neuroscientist needs smaller scarves that don't look like neck braces.
And I never really know with her if I'm learning something or unlearning something.
Yet again, a story comes back to something I'll never forget my dad saying when I was ~13: "We're just here to make more"
I love the way people within collective illusions cant see out of them,
for billions of years the instinct brain (run program and fight or flight) was the prime focus, otherwise known as the Thalamus= insects
Then for billions of years the focus was Bird/lizard electro magnetic (attachment and emotional range(meaning deciding when to fight or flight)) otherwise known as the Amygdala
Then for billions of years the focus was on the Cortices
Its that simple but , she is trapped within a confirmation bias bubble that elevates the importance of the cortices in awareness
The order to evolve comes from the base of all things and therefore to say we are not on the same branch is literally "cant see the wood for the trees"
this makes me want to go back to school. awesome!
Life is truly a never-ending sci-fi story. 💫
Well. We have to remember that the scientists are only speculating a theory that the brain developed because one animal intentionally ate another. The reason they came to that conclusion could be explained by the fact that the scientists were possibly biased due to their own primitive action of eating the flesh of other animals. This is a dangerous theory and as a vegan I oppose it. We need to continue evolving as a species and to do that we all need to go vegan. That is what I believe.🌱
I always thought the “lizard brain” was the limbic system because reptiles have instincts and base emotions (at least fear, aggression, attraction) but not higher thought. So when you’re acting on instinct or base feelings, your “lizard brain” is driving your behavior more predominantly than your cerebral cortex
The music is distracting
Tell me you have ADHD without….
Yes.
@@Kris-l3u 😄 spot on
well, plato talked about the soul, and he didn't talk about instinct and emotion. he said similar things, but this way of putting it is identical to the medievals which tended to picture the romans as medieval in clothing, architecture and habit.
Yeah I read that Carl Sagan book decades ago. It does appear that theory was very flawed, DNA based science has come along way since then. The brain function improvements that gave us an environmental and subsequent reproductive advantage would more likely survive and see further gain. Our chimp and ape cousins would be the first to consider in comparison. Being able to climb trees is a common trait, and helps simian critters survive predation. Our biggest threat nowadays is our fellow sapiens that use their large prefrontal cortex to dream up bigger and more deadly ways to kill another sapient critter. Sad. Evolutionary dead-end.
I feel like this is something that was used as a metaphor for where functions are or what functions are more basic and primordial, but then it was taken literally. As if evolution works by just putting another layer on top.
The brain myth was immortalized in Star Trek, where Spock was rational, Bones was emotional, and Scotty was the cerebellum, which were all directed by Kirk.
So, Scotty was instinct?
All this puts me in mind of a 90s sit-com called Herman's Head.
@@originaluddite Wow, someone else who remembers it.
Spock's Brain? : )
@@MXB2001 at the time some of my friends used Herman's Head as a shorthand to understanding themselves. 😀
That's not referring to the brain. That's referring to the tripartite mind. And Scotty wasn't involved
It's, Id -Bones, Ego - Spock, and Superego - Kirk
I've seen so many video that claim to debunk the triune brain theory and then don't. It doesn't matter to me if it's true or false, I'm ready to follow the evidence, but they don't explain what is wrong.
Thank you SO MUCH for this! As a neuroscientist, it annoys me no end every time someone repeats that old nonsense about lizard brains, "emotion centers" (the limbic system) etc. Another idiotic version of this myth is the "Polyvagal Theory". The brain is just too complex for these oversimplifications to work, that's why scientists can spend a lifetime trying to understand one tiny part of it. There will be no theory that explains the whole brain, deal with it.
I get what you are saying but doesn’t make evolutionary sense that the base part of the brain evolved first and was more autonomic which drove evolution of the lymbic part of the brain which allowed emotions to drive actions to survive.. eventually leading to emotions to drive abstract thinking in the prefrontal cortex and to plan for possible scenarios of the future and better manipulation of the environment?
@@MrPelham32 Ha. Using logic on scientists is hopeless. /s
@@MrPelham32 It could make sense, if brains were so clearly compartmentalized. Yes, there is some modularity, especially with regard to sensory processing, but emotions are not easy to separate from other cognitive processes, especially in the messiness of real life. There are no complex emotions without complex cognition. Even integrating complex sensory input into simple action output still requires some level of pattern recognition which can quickly get abstract. Only if both your sensory input and your action outputs are very simple, can you get away with not having many cognitive capacities, but then you also don't need any emotional complexity.
we need a special vid describing the history of the brain in detail
I watched this amazing lecture while we’re 2 weeks away from my wedding day. I can’t describe how you revised a major thought in me at 06:45
Please do describe! It will change your life!
Lol 😂
There is no teleological cause behind evolution (except perhaps human teleological causes in cases of selective breeding); the questions of “why” could pertain more to evolutionary pressures behind various adaptations/trajectories (at particular points in time), and questions of “how” could pertain more to the mechanisms through which evolution occurs.
I always connected the "lizard brain" to the area of the brain that controls our emotions, hence why we are driven to action through our emotions. Also known as the amygdala. So many of us live our lives under control of the amygdala instinct, unaware of how our emotions govern our actions, when in reality it should be the other way around. Our actions, or our mind controlling our emotions. To be aware of this is to realize that at any giving moment, our bodies respond to our environment in a very "animal" way, prompting our brains to think equal to our environment. This part of our brain hasnt evolved because we have all stayed stuck in enjoying the benefits of fight and flight adrenaline response that we all live with on a daily basis now. If we can learn to rewire our thought process eventually over time, we wont need to be so wired all the time, and quite possibly unlock different mental capacities that have been burried deep inside our brains. Could it be that we use a very limited capacity of our brain power for this reason? Until we learn to let go of anamocity, we will never evolve into something more.
yeah, we always seek an explanation for something bad that cause something what we don't want(essensially something that torture us) . how will it be, if we just accept everything, and tolerating it?
Wow mind altering!!! Love the liz at the end;) thanks!
i've always heard it refered to as a "reptile brain," not a "lizard brain." this is literally the first context i've heard the latter used. that being said, mammals did come from reptiles, so the metaphor is still apt.
That is if we count early synapsids as being actual reptiles. Personally I doubt it since they were all far closer to us genetically than to any modern animal we classify as a 'reptiles'.
Birds evolved from reptiles, that is very clear, but I'm not that sure about mammals doing the same.
Its still not apt become reptiles are not simple instinct machines from which mammals then humans progressed. Lizards and other reptiles have evolved well past that initial reptilian ancestor and their brains are closer to that of birds than mammals. None of these animals lack the structures for higher level thought. Humans are unique in terms of our intelligence in the sense that it is just that much more advanced than any animal-but reptiles, birds, and mammals all have structures (albeit different ones) for intelligent higher level thought.
As a killer main, I always let one survivor live and started to enjoy the game when I stopped caring about killing survivors and just playing for fun and not going on chases if I dont enjoy them
"The only animal on this planet that has a lizard brain is a lizard." She was spittin!!!
So, according to her it doesn't make sense if we using their 'evolution' of us coming from fish? But everything else should be good; right? But as everyone has mentioned below, its a concept/perspective to understand our we operate, interally and externally. It makes more sense unstanding the triune brain like this then other ways of explanations.
Lizard brain just alludes to the oldest or most primitive part of the brain. As far as I know. I never knew people thought that we had literally lizard’s brains
You dont have lizard brains, human have evolucted brain from primitive creatures.
"They may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR LIZARD BRAINS!!!"
i love this series
I didn’t know Carl Sagan came up with it or whatever, but that’s not how most people use that term today. It’s just a metaphor for the primitive survival mechanisms we still carry, not just from our animal origins, but also from the pre-modern era. It’s usually just a more visceral way of accusing someone of being dumb, controlled by fear, controlled by greed, or all of the above. Most people using the term are just trying to make a point or get a reaction.
Why do i think i have watched this exact video before.
Me too
The idea that "an animal to suddenly hunt and that's why brains evolved" passes the explanatory buck by taking for granted that such a first decisive animal wouldn't have needed a brain to make the decision.. not a good basis for explaining emergence. Terrance Deacon offers an empirically testable model for the emergence of mind.
OK sure...but when we lay people say lizard brain we don't mean we literally have a lizard's brain, we mean our primordial brain we inherited from our ancient non-human ancestors...maybe that's incorrect, too...but that's what we mean. 🥴
They don't get humor and can't read between the lines .
That's literally they idea they're debunking. you didnt inherit a primordial brain from non human ancestors, as that implies they themselves inherited a primordial brain from their ancestors, and so on and so on until oh, we all inherited part of our brain from lizards.
no. each organism has a brain that wired and rewired through every single generation a new thing, wired for that organism, and no part of it, no section is a primordial part. every generation, every organism has a brain that is wired for that organism, and not some other organism, not a lizard, not a primordial ancestor, not a fish, just that organism.
Having sat in community mental health classes telling me we have Lizard brains I am so glad to hear someone challenging this ie we don't have lizard brains because we aren't evolved from lizards! Good grief! I can now refer people to this video.
Hey! Thanks for the love Big Think BUT I've watched Big Think videos that perpetuate the lizard brain rubbish - find them and take them down!!
@@Tymbus Bare in mind that Barrett is a clinical psychologist...
We absolutely evolved from creatures anyone today would call lizards if they saw them IRL. And you seem to have miss the point. This video did nothing to address the concepts that this "story" teaches. It does NOT say the brain stem isn't responsible for basic metabolic functions, the limbic isn't isn't primarily responsible for emotions. The conclusion it makes about the about the development time of the cerebral cortex is gibberish. We don't really end up with a bigger cerebral cortex it just looks that way because it develops for longer into a bigger thing?
@@AzimuthAviationlol i love how your response is just - keep in mind, shes way smarter than me and the big words are hurting me.
@@donaldbest1154 yeah I didn't understand the point of that last bit... like what does it mean it "looks like" we have bigger prefrontal cortexes compared to the rest of our brains? Does that mean it's an optical illusion or something?
I might have misunderstood but like I’m no biologist but it seems like we definitely can know why something evolved? Like plants evolved leaves because leaves make photosynthesizing more efficient. That seems pretty unambiguous to me. I’m sure there’s plenty of other complex reasons but photosynthesizing seems like the main reason, and answers the why question
This is teleological, and puts the cart before the horse.
This assumes evolution has a goal.
It doesn't. There's no end point to evolution, there's no intention or design.
All It has is a filter. Things that don't pass on their genes, by surviving their environment, stop existing and don't continue to evolve.
Something that is advantageous to survival, like for instance having a mutation that creates a protein that randomly causes some conformation that grants a 0.01% boost to energy production, might give a slight boost to the chance that thing survives. repeat that a billion times and what started as a random mutation to a protien conformation has led to complex cellular machinery that converts sunlight into sugars.
organisms, and evolution itself, didn't start out with photosynthesis in mind. it merely started with survival in mind, where it ended up, shaped by the environment, was not predetermined at the outset.
It's semantics. The "why", used in a technical and philosophical sense, asks for a "purpose" as an answer. Purposes are ends that humans attribute to their actions in order to explain their cause. And "end" is a "telos" in Greek, therefore, "teleology". In this strict sense, there is no telos in evolution, just because evolution is a natural "mechanism" (so to speak), not a person, nor a intelect that would be able to "plan ahead" or show "purpose". This is why we say evolution has no goal. But that doesn't mean it has nothing driving it. It has, it is called "survival" (and replication as well). Not that evolution "wants" survival. But only that the mechanism is such that changes of genotype can only occur in systems that survive and maxime their capacity to survive, obviously. Therefore, the appearance of design that we see in evolved living organism has an explanation in such mechanism. In this sense, some people may say that we know "why" the design of a leaf, for instance, is the way it is, in the sense that we know the CAUSE of such design, and not that we picture evolution as having PURPOSE. In a not so technical sense, you are correct, because we do know "why" the design is as it is, since to know the cause of the design is to know "why" the organism came to have the particular phenotype that it has. You see, the "why" that I used in the above sentence is not employed in a very precise sense. But this is not a sin. People do talk about causation in terms of "why", and they do this without intending "intentional purpose", at least not in a human and psychological way. If you stick with common use of language, it is not entirely wrong to say that we know "why" the design of a leaf is as it is, cause we can trace the causes, based on our knowledge of the (blind) drives of evolution. Now, if you keep using "why" in this common and not so technical way, and then watch this video, and reaches the conclusion that we don't know "why" a specific design is the way it is, then you would wrong. Cause we do know "why". See, it is semantics.
@@fluxo_musical that's all well and good, but i will just add, some people really do mean "why" in the former sense when they say it and it can range from just funny at best to socially damaging at worst lol
While the concept may be scientifically inaccurate, the metaphor has utility in the field of psychotherapy. By describing emotional and physical dysregulation as originating from an older part of the brain the experience of dysregulation may be normalized and put in context rather than judged or shamed. Escalation and agitation are normal parts of brain function, and with the application of a few simple skills we can learn to give our rational brain time to engage and improve outcomes in relationships and interactions. My staff actively and deliberately teach clients that they have a lizard brain, it's important, it's o.k. to have one, and when we keep our "evolved brain" in the drivers seat we become more effective agents in a host of situations. We get good results with this approach.
yeah, we always seek an explanation for something bad that cause something what we don't want(essensially something that torture us) . how will it be, if we just accept everything, and tolerating it?
Actually I think it's harmful to therapy, because it's based on a consequential misconception: it labels (strong) emotions as primitive and negative, and rational thought as superior, when actually the whole brain has evolved, including the "primitive" "old" parts of the brain. It has been shown that when people entirely lose emotions they make *worse* decisions. A lot of problems cannot be solved purely logically.
All parts of the brain have a function, instead of controlling "primitive" parts of the brain, and letting the "rational" part take over and dominate the rest, we should broaden our focus and listen to more voices in our brain. The issue is tunnel vision, not the emotions we feel. Another rational form of tunnel vision is not better, it's equally limited.
It's actually a harmful fallacy to keep teaching that in therapy: all parts of your brain have a useful function, numbing some out / controlling them will not make you see clearer.
What you want to do is broaden your tunnel vision, not replace it with "rational" kind of tunnel vision.
The shame and judgement of (strong) emotional responses comes from ignorance and a morale view that is simplistic. Alleviating that shame with another misunderstanding is not helpful.
It has been shown that many problems cannot be decided purely logically, and that people with no emotions will get stuck.
Tunnel vision is what creates issues, replacing it with a "rational" kind of tunnel view is not improving things, it's limiting you in other ways.
My Therapsids parents say your wrong. blup blup.
Gosh, I hope this video blows up. The pervasive use of the triune brain myth in the modern day is really frustrating. We absolutely need to, as a society, do away with the notion that logic and emotion are in contention with one another in the brain and the triune brain myth's long running history is the main contributor to that false idea.
How exactly would you tackle helping someone with an anger based impulse control issue. Would you tell them their rational and emotional selves were not really in conflict? What would you say to them as they reported watching in horror as they lost control of themselves and did and said things they regretted AS they knew they were about to do them? Myth is not a false story but one that contains truth rather than is true. This myth does not create this inner experience it just seeks to explain it.
@@donaldbest1154 I wouldn't tackle that at all, because I'm not a professional expert. This isn't a question to ask a layperson.
What I do know, is that I'm quite confident that professional experts would be operating much more efficiently if they were developing their methodologies based on updated accurate models of the human brain, instead of falling back on outdated models.
The fact of the matter is, that all the recent research in neurology and emotion shows that there is no fundamental separation between rationality and emotion. They are intrinsically linked to one another and all actions and behaviors come down stream from our instances of emotion and the concepts that our brains use to run predictions and interpret data. What good is does it do to explain someone's experience using a model of their brain that is completely false?
Not quite. Amygdala hijack is a real phenomenon and is exactly what propaganda purposely triggers so you are more suggestible. They don't call it "propaganda " any more, though. It's advertising or public relations. Watch a few videos on the science behind this and you start to see why so many of us are angry, depressed and anxious with little impulse control. Being in a frequent threat response does not lead you to greater heights of critical thinking, but instead to increased irrationality.
@@donaldbest1154 I would have the intelligence to use a better metephor than one that propagates myth, superstition, religious ideology or other hokum.
And I'd avoid relying of argumentation from lack of imagination as some kind of rationality to persist in ignorance.
@@Aaron.Thomas We are clearly concerned about different areas of ignorance. I am not concerned with truth on some ideal level. You can't just say you would replace practical tools you need to actually do it. Or I consider your enlightenment darkness.
Thanks for saying knowledge is theory and stories, best guesses as opposed to truth. Ideas. And if a bunch of people get together and present an idea - it’s just that. A bunch of people got together. There may be other bunches of people with different ideas. They just weren’t allowed to voice theirs. Thank You.
I am pretty sure that most people know we didn’t evolve from lizards but it’s just a metaphor/ harmless misnomer. The sun also doesn’t rise in the morning and most people know that but it’s just what we call that event.
Um, pretty sure "lizard brain" is a metaphor for the fight/flight survival instinct inherent in lizards, but it's not meant literally. And this is "Big Thinking"? o,O Um...
No, no: the terms was used because it was initially supposed that the structure was shared with that of lizards indicating a common evolutionary origin.
Nowadays, the term can be used to indicate a “simple and instinctual way of thinking”, but the majority of people (in the academic field too, unfortunately) think that the meaning is still literal
you would be surprised how many people take this literally ...
Well, I would say: Metaphors are never _exact_ of course, otherwise they wouldn't be metaphors after all, right? But, if we analyse metaphors just for their quality of more accurately and ingeniously representing reality seen from a specific domain (such as the scientific domain in general), it should be possible to evaluate if a metaphor is _better_ or _worse_ , for the interests of such particular context. This certainly doesn't mean we should discard metaphors at all, but we should always try to develop better, more insightful ones, according to the context.
I’m pretty disappointed by this video, but I guess this is just a case of language evolving. “Lizard brain” has become a more casual term compared to its old definition. Most of us are familiar with the new definition and didn’t know the history behind it. So… I feel misled by the title, even if it is accurate. Actually, now I’m wondering if we’re the right audience for the actual explanation in the video.
And the competition between bacteria didn’t spawn and arms race? I don’t have a better explanation for the evolution of a brain, other than the obvious evolution of sensory organs, but suggesting it was competition that started it makes her sound unintelligent. I’m sure it’s a lack of context and her inaccurate effort at simplifying the concept.
For therapeutic purposes, the triune brain serves a metaphorical purpose - and in part, is felt internally as experientially having value to make sense of our lived experience & different motivations. However, in modern CBT, in particular CFT, there is more of a recognition of our various motivations, and uses a metaphor for our drive-threat & soothing systems. Lisa's theory is quite a physically reductionist model? Mere thoughts...
I don't think it invalidates any of that. That group of structures called the "lizard brain" didn't evolve from lizards, that's all.
I would argue that it's not a useful metaphorical concept, but what she's pointing out is that the concept of the triune brain is not a metaphor. This is a real neurological model that has existed for 50 years. And it has been the leading model of the human brain for far too long, because it's not accurate. It doesn't even come close to describing how the human brain evolved, how it develops, or how it processes sense data. I don't think it's useful to use metaphorical concepts that draw on a truncated representation of the human brain. I think we are more than capable of coming up with metaphors that map onto modern models of how the human brain functions without sacrificing any efficacy in their application
@@meech3576 I don't even need to, because Big Think released another video last week with the same researcher, Lisa Feldman Barrett, explaining emotions better than I ever could.
Don't fall into the trap of believing that every person that identifies the inefficacy of something must also be the one to identify the solution. It's an unreasonable way to approach the concept of problem solving.
In fact, I'd recommend you engage with all of LFB's work, as she has a litany of brilliant metaphors for the brain as a modern model.
@@meech3576 additionally, I don't think you give your fellow sapiens enough credit, if you think we need oversimplified metaphors that function on an outdated model to explain this stuff to laypeople. People aren't stupid. They're underinformed
@@meech3576 Ok my guy. I dunno why you're so adversarial. Do you I guess.
It seems that selective evolutionary pressures at some point have an almost cascade effect which in the finished product looks like a bunch of puzzle pieces that obviously couldn't go together any other way.
This is obviously a biased view, however when you take into account for instance the scaling laws (lifespan vs. number of heartbeats in said life) and then apply the average which is about 1 and a half million heartbeats across the board for mammals things get kind of weird, to me at least, because I can't help myself but to ask why?
Why do we get the same number of heartbeats as a mouse who gets the same number of heartbeats as an elephant but our lifespans are vastly different?
Convergent evolution is fascinating and odd. How far down can it go?
With the last few years of discovery, quantum properties have been brought to light in biology as well.
Is there a discovery waiting to be made in the future about quantum convergence?
Okay I need to go take some aspirin. My head is killing me now.
one wonders how a theory for which there is little to no evidence survives successfully up until today ...
Because as a metaphor it explains our daily behaviour in an easy and comprehensive way.
I say an appeal to authority, since Carl Sagan said it, it must be “ true.” From there it took on a life of its own.
good stories don't need to be true, they just need to be memorable
@@thedanielfuentes that's kinda true, I guess. mimetics state something similar, I believe. It's not the best ideas that get past on, but the most replicable.
For the same reason we have religions........it gives us a sense of control.
Actually, the horses are 5 and are the 5 senses, and the charioteer is the mind
Long live free Internet Documentaries!! God bless you and Godspeed.
Didn’t mammals evolve from synapsids? And synapsids evolve from reptiles? Like correct me if I’m wrong but reptiles and mammals didn’t split off when life first grew legs and walked on land.
Synapsids and reptiles evolved separately from a basal amnoite very soon after the amniote egg evolved. They are sister clades. The reptile (saurapsid) and synapsids lines evolved seperately from a common ancestor.
@@davidderubeis7335 Cool, thanks for clearing that up! Learn something new everyday lol
I don't think this video did anything to refute - whatever it is she thinks she is refuting. Often times scientists cherry pick and only notice what isn't working about a common understanding of a thing and argue against it's flaws without honoring OR replacing the utility of this understanding. This video is guilty of that. Of course - for instance our motor control needed to evolve with our changing bodies. So if people think that simply because our expanded cerebral cortex is where the hominid action mostly was. Its not hard to point out that some parts of tool use required changes deeper down. It doesn't just look like mice have a smaller cerebral cortex they do all that extra time results in a much larger brain to body mass and much larger cerebrals cortex verses the rest.... Her statements seem less accurate than any misconception she is trying to debunk. Genetics debunks the tripart brain because of development times??? We don't have lizard brains because our first amniote ancestors (who meet any lay persons idea of a lizard exactly) weren't technically lizards from a scientists point of view you need to understand jargon like post orbital fenestra's to understand. I say leave science communication to people like Carl Sagan and stop trying to contradict him. When you show your ignorance of common sense you look like a fool legitimately.
My guy, you do realize that Lisa Feldman Barrett is in the top 1% of cited neuroscience researchers right
@@rowanaster3986so are you saying she is not cherry picking data? Is she beyond reproach?
@@freedombro6502 Nope. Didn't say that. Dude said she's showing her ignorance, and I can assure you she's not ignorant. Having read her books, many of the papers her lab has published, and watched hours of lectures and interviews about her research, I'm much more confident that to lay the blame on Big Think for poor editing. Especially given that they're a pop sci publication.
Lisa Feldman Barrett is doing her best to increase the PR and better the public understanding around neuroscientific concepts that have gone wildly misunderstood for a long time. Emotions being the big one. Triune brain myth has a lot to do with that. So, it makes sense that she'd do a few video segments for Big Think to try and further disseminate her lab's research.
I agree with your comments.
Just, not about the person you're referring to. someone else here.
@@rowanaster3986 This has no relevance to the question of this as successful peace of communication to the general public. She probably benefits greatly from the peer review process. Your appeal to authority is not logical response.
Mammals and lizards are on different trees that split from Therapsida, often called mammal-like reptiles, and not at the point of fish.
Diane Keaton vibes.
Annie who
I will continue to refer to my instinctive side as my lizard brain. It cant really be short circuited at that level it can only be adapted at the higher levels after much work, and even then it just reduces the signal it doesnt override it.
It's refreshing to hear a scientist admit that explanations for why evolution occurs are inherently subjective. Science addresses how, not why.
I find it interesting that in this universe it's basically impossible for good things to happen without any harm or suffering first having happened at some time somewhere. This is the case even for the existence of the brain itself. Things like sight and being able to perceive and enjoy music may REQUIRE a specific set of laws of physics, and maybe couldn't exist in another universe... Or maybe not even exist if we evolved differently. I am so curious about what intelligent aliens would be like if they exist!
Semantic strawman. Yes, people say "lizard brain", but we know that they're not literally referring to lizards, they're referring to the reptile ancestors of mammals. We can even see this in the newspaper clipping shown at about 2:15 in, that say "reptiles" and not "lizards".
Also, reptiles and mammals did not evolve from fish. Mammals evolved from reptiles, reptiles evolved from amphibians, and amphibians evolved from bony fishes.
So, she uses a misleading strawman, and gets the basics of The evolutionary tree wrong, so how am I supposed to trust anything else she says?
More fun evolutionary sorry is that we have big brains to impress our mates, and ideal mate. Hunting and avoiding hunters isn't actually that big a deal, in space-time measures, but monkeying around with others is a constant preoccupation. Still think there's something to be gained by noticing the way the anatomy of the brain is organised about different levels of 'abstraction'.
Thanks to the annunaki
Now I'd be really curious to hear from an evolutionary biologist who clearly has more to say about this than a psychologist or an astrophysicist. Maybe, dr. Shubin?