10. Development, Nature & Nurture I
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 жов 2021
- MIT 9.13 The Human Brain, Spring 2019
Instructor: Nancy Kanwisher
View the complete course: ocw.mit.edu/9-13S19
UA-cam Playlist: • MIT 9.13 The Human Bra...
This lecture examines how we think the cortex organizes in the brain over infancy and childhood, and the function of genes vs experience.
License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA
More information at ocw.mit.edu/terms
More courses at ocw.mit.edu
Support OCW at ow.ly/a1If50zVRlQ
We encourage constructive comments and discussion on OCW’s UA-cam and other social media channels. Personal attacks, hate speech, trolling, and inappropriate comments are not allowed and may be removed. More details at ocw.mit.edu/comments.
I believe, I experience the effects of traumatic bonding. I get very sensitive to the mental influence of family. I feel disrupted by them often times, as if they are using manipulation to be detrimental to my state of mind.
I have found the question of "how much neural structure is innate and must be encoded in DNA" fascinating for years and just looking online never gave me satisfying answers. Thank you for this! I'll go check out those papers too.
Lies again? Drug Nurofen
A friend of mine was the son of an ambassador. His dad spoke English, his mother spoke english and native Spanish. English was spoken at home. He spent the first few years of his life in Russia, and grew up hearing and speaking Russian fluently. When he was young, he moved to Tanzania where he went to English school. Then he moved long-term to El Salvador and became fully fluent in Spanish (he always knew some Spanish). When we met in college, he explained how he once spoke fluent Russian, but completely lost all ability to speak and to understand it. I couldn’t believe something like that could be possible, but now it makes a lot more sense.
"He once spoke fluent Russian" is a very vague term. For example, Vitalik Buterin also used to speak fluent Russian, but more than 20 years ago, his family moved to the US, so now his "fluency", in some ways, even worse than the one that he had at 6. He sounds less natural than a 6 years old kid. But he definitely knows way more words and can express way more concepts, even deep concepts. So did he become more or less fluent? I believe that his ability to speak deteriorated because speaking required a lot of precise subconscious muscle movements, and by practicing another language, you can lose some of the pronunciation mastery of another language (I myself sound a bit more weird when I speak Russian when compared to me 10 years ago), and the same thing probably happened to your friend.
However, what I can't belive, is that your friend "lost all ability to understand Russian". In my experience, in most cases when people say that they "lost an ability to understand the language", usually means that they weren't on a high level in the first place. They might've been able to get by talking to kids on some simple topics, but in most cases, their level wasn't really high enough to understand everything they think they did.
In my experience, usually speaking skills deteriorate over time, but understanding skills only improve, even years of not hearing a language. I could be wrong, but that is what I think.
Thank you MIT and thank you Dr. Kanwisher!I am a psychology student in Germany and appreciate your psychology content very much.
Doctor Kanwisher looks so happy in this lecture.
Thank you Doctor and MIT for sharing this.
I appreciate a lot the engagement of credible pushbacks re data-interpretation from fMRI 👌
Ma'am speaks in a way so splendid!
Ei oo agendaa haluan kostaa vanhemmilleni ja Jane rauhoittaa ❤️
Thank you for sharing this course! it is really interesting and helpful. I think, seeing face is not only one way track, it is significant because infants (also adults) experience certain reaction when they are look at - and that can only come from carer's or other persons face.
Fabulous Teacher! Thank you kindly
I have to guess at what's being asked by students or answered by TAs if the professor doesn't rephrase it. Maybe the mic setup could be changed in the future to make them a little more audible?
Captions help a bit
Do u have jellyfish modeling on the electric-lightening fluorescent effects? I’ve been seen the presentation on aqua museum.
At 51:55
How about the imageNET with markov chain?
When speaking about what is sufficient to pick out faces I wonder if they have tried to keep those square patches at different levels of the page. It is quite possible that the infant finds the patches higher up on the page more intimidating than those lower on the page resulting in a longer attention span ... and is not necessarily face recognition. For eg. One would find a big rock towering above eye level more intimidating than one upto eye level which would be consequently more intimidating than one below eye level...also the more variations in the page would result in longer attention to the page as the details take time to register possibly because of lesser myelination at that age.....I mean there are so many other explanations than the innateness of facial recognition...
Thanks again for these videos, really enjoying them!, despite being a humanities/social sciences type. I have a couple of questions (not sure if they've been answered at all). First, would the baby monkeys who were deprived of seeing faces in the first months of life develop the face recognition patch later, once they'd started to be exposed to faces? And if they were reared without seeing faces in real life but allowed to see them on screen would they develop the face recognition patch at all?
QN 1: Facial boredom in babies: If babies get bored quickly when seeing a repeat face in a test, why do they spend so much time watching their mother outside the tests? QN2: @54:00 + welders' masks: A welder's mask looks somewhat like a face and has a slit or visor for the eyes. The slit is usually in the upper part of the mask (where the eyes are...) + this location was found to be significant in one of the other mentioned experiments (dots at the top of a square). So didn't this invalidate the experiment? (In the original experiment, monkeys were raised by lab staff who used a faceless hood - there were no recognizable features or pertinent locations, totally useless for welding of course).
what if they tested those monkeys in a "welding mask" (or whatever they used to cover their faces) vs object task? Would the ffa become tuned to these masks rather than natural faces?
In the Arcaro et al 2017 paper why didn’t anyone ask if narrowing is already taking place in the face area? Maybe that’s why there are no visible patches.
The monkey, and any human being, pays more attention to the face when it expresses emotions, than when it is inexpressive. Perhaps the "face recognition area" doesn't actually analyze faces, but something closely related to faces, such as feelings or emotions, which in humans are expressed by facial expressions.
An interesting test would be to compare the response of these areas to faces that express feelings (fear, anguish, anger...) and faces that express nothing, such as those of mannequins or dead people.
Näin Jane antaa vanhemmilleni opetuksen ❤️
Hail Prof.
amazing
Perhaps, there can be some higher resolution.
я сразу увидела разницу между обезьяньими лицами, хотя мне 38. на обезьян в детстве никогда не смотрела, видела только по телевизору и в книжках про животных
7 lectures to go!
Development of Human brains are explained.
I don’t get why the presence of a huge swat of cortical real estate such as the somatosensory area detected per fMRI argues vs fMRI- undetectable but present (almost mature)FFA in early stages; given our knowledge in brain physiology (physics), ie. blood flow is significantly ,drastically different in the young vs later stages…besides, keeping in mind this is ‘animal model ‘ data, not neonates
Please share the original face of the monkey and male subject along side the second picture… I want to see the difference myself!
Given that the existence of many cortical regions is an important and contested issue, I'm confused that you wouldn't follow up on those subjects who didn't exhibit them in the scanner. Simultaneous fMRI and single unit work in the monkey is starting to show a much richer and more spatially varied pattern of cortical activity under natural viewing conditions, than might be expected from a division of the cortex into a simple hierarchy of functionally segregated blocks of tissue. If 10% of subjects aren't showing the localised BOLD responses you expect, even in tightly controlled circumstances, then I'd suggest you shouldn't brush that off.
What makes me curious is...how does the baby know to recognize a human and know how to replicate the human? How does it know its sense of self well enough to recognize itself (other humans) in its environment? How does it know to look at another person and think "that's ME." Is there some innate knowing of self as it relates to environment? Is there some innate understanding of self?
Maybe it is something to do with back and forth engagement. Maybe a baby can recognize when its environment is actively engaging with it. They can tell when they make a motion and then its environment responds to it. The baby knows when another entity is engaged with it. They see their behavior reflected in other entities response?
at 33:50, someone proposes a the question "So couldn't that just mean that the perception network develops really quickly right after birth? "
Is the baby is scanning for high-quality, immediate, real-time behavioral reciprocation? Is it scanning for this upon birth? Is it experiencing this when it sees a face? If so, is it constructing around this? When it recognizes this type of behavioral reciprocation, does it prioritize this? Does it develop some framework around it? Some construct?
I don't know either, but it's obvious that recognizing other humans is critical for survival. It would be more surprising if humans (and other animals) didn't recognize their own species.
Fallowing a comment from lecture number seven.....! What is often described, when refering to almost all of the experiments throughout all of the lectures so far, is very much known and has been in use from many years as illusionists methods and hypnotist techniques. It is the only way that a lot of the answers gathered during the "research" could have the outcomes stated. Bringing a very odd yet valid question....! If people that are very good at illusionists methods and hypnotist techniques, have and can produce the same outcome in answers, that are derived from neurosciences intrusive methods and experiments.......! Where and what is the science there!?!?
For that I will try and point to something, a particular way of behaviour and structure in thinking and acting , which for me is very , and often painfully obvious. In order to do so, I will make it as a direct statement to anyone including myself, in the form of (if) possibilities that should lead to a question always, which in turn a possible answer can at minimum be contemplated over.
If anyone is a highly evolved animal, and nothing more but only that......! Then anyone is in full opposition, extremely against any form of structure, mathematics, astronomy, all forms of art, language, writing and speaking, , governance system known as democracy, religion, politics, philosophy, any form of science, architecture, intentional complex organising involving and jumping many species and life forms, and extremely improbable problem solving, commonly known as pathfinding, all the way to other planets.
More to it, anyone will be in total opposition and extremely against all of the above and much much more....! Even in the case when anyone is fully involved, taking part, with and within democracy, art, science, architecture, philosophy, astronomy, politics, language writing and speaking, problem solving, intentional complex organising, and much much more .....! Simple and uniquely based on the fact , that anyone is only and only a highly evolved animal and nothing more.
Making for a serious absurdity to exist with and within anyone. Which in simple terms has to do with the fact of the very being of anyone with and within all of the above mentioned, only on terms and as a being of a highly evolved animal, makes anyone automatically the very destroyers of the very things anyone wants to be with and within.
Because the obvious, often very painful fact I stated in pointing out, is the fact that all of the above mentioned, and much much more, do not exist in relation to a animal however highly evolved the animal is. In fact all of the above mentioned did not originate from a highly evolved animal state of being, thinking or acting. In fact I, or anyone would be very safe to bet all the way to a galaxy or two if in possession....! That if the condition of being were as it is believed in present periods, that of anyone being a highly evolved animal only, none of the above would have ever been initiated, developed or maintained.
Not one single structure let alone very complex ones. Bringing the question of...! If all the structures that are exactly the same as when they began from a point of being , not as an animal, even if a very highly evolved one.....then a very highly evolved animal running all of these structures is in fact destroying each and every one of them, consciously or unconsciously!?!?
This obscene paradox, because it is becoming past absurd,...! I will even argue that is the very often the specific and complex reason for what is known as depression or many other mental health problems. By the very simple fact that all of civilization is exactly in structural form as when it began, with the only difference of,....! Now being seen, understood, explained and experienced more and more from what is tough as anyone being only a very highly evolved animal. Putting anyone in full opposition and confrontation at any given period, location or form being with the very system including their very own self.(in more and more extreme complex situations.)
We human in being make highly evolved animals, as mentioned above, all of it and much more, and if we are only that a highly evolved animal also, the what is known as (artificial intelligence) in the right (invisible hands) will destroy anyone and anything that is only a highly evolved animal, by being a few steps higher and in possession of (invisible hands) that would most likely not be only highly evolved animals, but something more, as it would be very obvious if not (invisible).
Why is the significance of eye contact not being addressed in infant connection with faces? That’s where the energetic action is. And why is entanglement theory (good ol’ spooky action at a distance) not being mentioned as a possible explanation for face-specific sites finding each other and migrating toward each other across hemispheres?
Because infants have lousy vision. It sounds like you don't really understand the scope of the lecture and are instead throwing out fanciful thoughts. It's not her role here to mention bla bla bla.
It appears we exist in a cause and effect state of existence. Every effect has at least one cause.
Has the face-deprived baby monkeys developed face patches in later years?
How does a fish know how to swim? How does a bird know how to fly? How does a baby know how to cry?
Their respective DNA. Basically their respective BIOS, (basic input output system), their basic 'hardware' and 'software'.
Take a look at microbes as well. (I highly recommend the UA-cam channel 'Journey to the Microcosmos', and note, I do not have any affiliation with that channel other than being a subscriber). Many microbes appear to move about as if they had consciousness, memories and thoughts, although they do not have a physical brain.
Speculation on my part: (copy and paste from my files):
LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS?
* (Lowest Level): Just energy in a coherent format interacting with itself.
* Some sort of feedback mechanism, but with no real consciousness, memories or thoughts.
* Some sort of 'memory' established, but still no consciousness to consciously interact with that memory. Just basically like stored preprograms that get activated at certain times.
* Low level unconscious activity occurs that can interact with those stored memories.
* Higher level consciousness activity occurs, while still having unconscious activity, that interacts with those stored memories with 'thoughts'. (Where we are currently at).
I think ‘a-priori’ in latin means from previous, thus experience (somewhere down the line, they changed it). Overall, knowledge is self contained in memory, extrinsic. This means it takes evolutionary progression to convert that knowledge to intrinsic, which is something self-coded. Remember, we are not that important in life, whats are expiration date?
I would agree that the evolutionary process essentially gives us a form of ancestorial knowledge . I'm curious as to your definition of "important" in this context
@@davyroger3773 - just specifying that the universe doesn’t require us, it will keep on going after we’re gone
@@juancampos1164 Currently:
Nature is our greatest ally in so far as Nature gives us life and a place to live it, AND Nature is also our greatest enemy that is going to take it all away. (OSICA)
I am shockingly aware of the rights of the rights of the 72 hours old infant to be with his/her mom to learn who she could become,,, My heart aches for the rights of all living creatures.. The rolled up wash cloth as a mom was no mom at all!
I've never really focused on face thought I was giving eye contact turned out I wasent never understood body language that isn't stuck in your face obvious I was premature in the 1970s when parents didn't go in yo baby care units so there wasent any holding contact for about the first 8 days of my life it says the neurons are all decided pre birth and all the neurons but I suppose it's possible in some people that all these synapses come out wrong and up to three I seemed okay but all through school had trouble in lessons directions describing what someone looks like
I immediately and obviously saw the difference between the 2 monkey-faces, and I'm an adult. So, I guess I'm one of the few people who have retained their ability to discriminate between animal faces after 6 months. It could very well be that my caregivers continued to stimulate that ability by telling stories about animals in books and the fluffy ones I used to own, among one was ... a monkey.
10:43 :))
Kun Jane on yhteiskunnan puolesta ❤️🖕🖕
What sense does it make to have a 2-hrs lecture about face perception (innate or experienced) and present many different theories which are contradicting themselves? What do the student learn? They learn that they DONT KNOW.
I would be much smarter to present the already proven theories, even if they are no the latest.
Cool stuff! I’m wondering about didactical value of asking students question in this manner. Just think about peer-pressure as well as the fact that you’re filming them. It’s psychologically very demanding. Teacher behaves confidently, she is attractive and draws attention to material, however, asking students non-obvious questions in this manner may put them down. Also saying ‘i don’t remember your name’ the way she does it …. can be interpreted in a bad way. Picking ideas from the audience is great, don’t get me wrong, but ppl should feel comfy with their teacher, otherwise what’s the point?
Maybe she is intentionally provocative in her speech? Maybe students can be provocative as well and start argument in the middle of a lecture?
Watch the first video. Her Story of Bob has many self-aggrandizing moments, nevertheless, the information she is providing is interesting.
@@walterneta3679 maybe Bob was just a story, I personally can't verify that ... so I assumed that its just a pedagogical trick of sorts. You need to give credit of trust to ppl when you first meet/see them, right? So, pumping up yourself in front of others is not necessarily wrong if that serves good purpose and doesn't come at other real ppls cost ... what do you think?
ps: I watched the whole playlist and really liked it
@@illiakailli It matters not if the "Story" was real or not, but instead, I viewed the numerous times she, what appears to be to me, humble-brags and self-aggrandizes as interesting. I do not believe you "need to give credit of trust" to people when you first meet them, however, your point as to why she did may have merit; if it really was for a good reason like to establish rapport or as a pedagogical tool. However, she has 4 of the 5 basis of power: legitimate, expert, reward, and coercive (French & Raven, 1959). It is well established that the more an individual in power uses or reinforces power differentials the more the less powerful develops resentment e.g. the more she humble-brags the more likely it will come across negatively (Singh, 2009).
I think she's pretty cool. She keeps the material fascinating. She's very excited and full of ambition about these topics. It's like she has to keep holding herself back like she wants to just run off at full speed.
@@Cruzaflo agree, she is definitely a charismatic teacher and I enjoyed watching all her lectures. Will likely re-watch once again at some point!