Real people, fictional people

Characters in novels, movies, and other fictions can seem quite real (we root for one and boo another, for example, and cry sometimes when one of them dies). Yet for all that, we can easily distinguish them from real people, people that we know personally. But how do you know that your mother is real, for example, but Scarlett O’Hara is not?

An ingenious recent fMRI study compared brain activity in cases where people contemplated scenarios involving fictional characters, famous people that they didn’t know personally, and friends or family members. Participants had to determine the plausibility of actions like dreaming about a fictional character (possible), talking with a fictional character (impossible) or having dinner with a real person (possible).

Two brain areas appeared to be involved in the activity of distinguishing flesh-and-blood people from the purely mental constructs that are fictional characters: the anterior medial prefrontal cortex and the posterior cingulate cortex. These are parts of the brain’s default network, which kicks in when we’re not doing anything in particular and our minds go wandering over an internal landscape; both areas are believed to be important in self-referential thought and the recall of autobiographical memories. These brain areas were most active in the tasks involving friends and family, moderately active in tasks involving famous people who were not personally known, and least active in tasks involving a fictional character. The idea is that perhaps you know your mother is real because your brain codes her as being more personally relevant to you than a fictional character is.

The paper is available on PLoS ONE: Reality = Relevance? Insights from Spontaneous Modulations of the Brain’s Default Network when Telling Apart Reality from Fiction, Anne Abraham and D. Yves von Craman. It’s got lots of interesting background, and some fascinating material on the possible relevance of this work and ways it could be extended. I’d love to know, for example, how particularly well-known and loved fictional characters fall on the spectrum of brain activity, and also what an writer’s brain looks like when it’s contemplating characters it has created. Meanwhile, it’s time for me to immerse myself in a fictional world and a hot bath.

Virtual reality between the ears

I’m reading Adam Bede, by George Eliot, and I’ve noticed that she opens several chapters with an invitation to the reader to view a scene as she describes it. I think at one point she even has readers peeking through a window to see inside a house. This invitation to enter another world, whether explicit or implicit, is one of the chief allures of fiction for me. A recent fMRI study reveals some of the brain activity going on when we immerse ourselves in a written narrative. It’s an active process, with different brain areas coming into play to mirror what the characters in the narrative are doing. Our minds are evidently doing something akin to what Eliot describes: experiencing a virtual world to some degree as if it were real. This article from PhysOrg.com describes the work. The paper will appear in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science, but I haven’t been able to find a citation yet.

Songs that call up memories

A friend recently sent me a link to a Pandora station he had created and thought I might like. That got me started exploring Pandora (an Internet music service based on the results of the Music Genome Project), in particular creating stations based on music I remember from my teen years and twenties. Music is one of the strongest triggers I know for memories of a particular time and place; I enjoy not only recalling my own memories associated with a particular song, but hearing the stories that people close to me share about songs they remember.

However, I recalled all those details (and more), as well as some of the emotions of that time period, without listening to the song. A recent study examined whether there’s a difference in the strength of recall if people hear the song, see the title or lyrics, or see the album cover. The hypothesis was that hearing the song would lead to stronger recall, and that’s certainly what I would have expected. In fact, in a study of 124 undergrads who were prompted to recall songs from five different periods of their pasts, it didn’t matter that much how they were reminded of the song. The memories came back about as strongly for any of the experimental conditions, as long as the subjects were familiar with it and had autobiographical memories associated with it. This story from Science Daily gives an overview. The paper itself goes into a good bit more detail about autobiographical memory and the finer points of the study: Using music to cue autobiographical memories of different lifetime periods, Elizabeth T. Cady, Richard Jackson Harris, and J. Bret Knappenberger. Psychology of Music, Vol. 36, No. 2, 157–177 (April 2008)

Book review: iBrain

iBrain: Surviving the technological alteration of the modern mind, by Gary Small and Gigi Vorgan. New York: HarperCollins, 2008.

If you are looking for a good book summarizing what we know about the effect of technology on our brains, I’d suggest you keep looking. This book provides a mixture of self-help, technical help, popular neuroscience, and a subtle but persistent deprecation of modern communication technology, without, in my opinion, doing any one topic justice. Furthermore, it’s mired in a fundamental confusion about the difference between evolution and the capability of individual brains to change their neuronal circuits in response to the environment (neuroplasticity). This leaves me doubtful about how far I can trust the authors when they present scientific information.

The book addresses digital immigrants, those of us for whom current communication technologies are something we encountered after our formative years. This is fine, except for the fact that it is threaded with anti-technology bias. Although the authors don’t explicitly advise against technology use, instead counseling balance, the vignettes presented throughout the book deal only with the risks and down-side of technology. Loaded language is often used to deliver statistics: Young people don’t watch or use digital media, for example; they expose their brains to them.

The book does cover some interesting research in various relevant areas (e.g., addiction, ADHD), and tackles big topics like the effect of the Internet on politics, entertainment, and crime. These are all useful or important things to consider. However, it tends to cover these topics in a more or less cursory way, because it covers a lot of other turf as well, offering self-help exercises to bolster your interpersonal communication skills and information to help you survive in a digital world. This technology toolkit contains fairly basic advice about things like web searching, cell phone etiquette, and online privacy, most of which is not likely to be new to you if you read this blog. (And even your grandparents, no matter how old they are, could probably tell you to save only the email messages you are likely to have to refer to later.) In short, the book is a hybrid that, in my opinion, doesn’t provide significant new, useful, thoughtfully presented information on any one topic.

At the heart of my quarrel with this book is the first chapter, which assures you that your brain is evolving right now. That’s a questionable statement. Your brain changes into something different as you learn new things, no doubt about that, but that’s neuroplasticity, not evolution. You might charitably think that the authors are using “evolution” in its broader, nonscientific sense of developing into something more advanced. In fact, they offer this definition themselves, but it’s at the head of a section on Darwinian evolution, which talks about natural selection and survival of the fittest and even mentions DNA, but goes on to talk about brain evolution in terms of single-generation changes like the development of a shorthand for text messaging, rather than intergenerational changes in gene frequencies. OK, maybe they’re talking about cultural evolution, but in that case, why bring up Darwin and genes without making plain that biological and cultural evolution are analogous in some ways but not the same? Also, can a single brain even be said to evolve culturally, or does the culture itself evolve? All in all, I found this first chapter a grievous irritant.

The book goes on to discuss the brain gap; I remember the generation gap and the missile gap from my childhood, so maybe I’m not as excited about a new gap as I should be. One worthwhile question about the difference between digital natives and digital immigrants—as yet unanswered—regards the way that immersion in electronic worlds affects the social maturation of young brains. The research the book presents is suggestive, but inconclusive.

Sometimes it seems like the authors are trying to argue it both ways: On the one hand, individual brains change to adapt to their environments; that’s why the brain gap arose, because digital natives and digital immigrants face different environments, to some degree. But the point of adapting is to cope with the environment better, and it’s possible that kids are developing the kind of social skills they need in the world they’re going to have to survive and mate in. If this is happening at the cost of losing ordinary garden-variety social interaction skills, that is worrisome, but it’s not really clear yet that that’s what’s happening, in my opinion. As far as I can tell, young people still go to school and have to interact with their peers and their elders face to face. And it’s worth mentioning that older communication technologies, like the book, have also been blamed for stunting social skills. (Hands up everyone who, as a child, was told by teachers or parents to get your nose out of that book and go play with the other kids.)

I get the feeling that part of what motivated the book is the unease that an older generation feels with the world that young people are creating. This has been a concern of the older generation for centuries. While there may sometimes be room for concern, the fact that the plaintive cry about young people who seem like they’re from another planet has been heard for generations does blunt the urgency for me. And while the authors seem to view online interactions as less desirable than those that take place face to face, they don’t say much about the social benefits of the Internet, like the way it connects far-flung communities that might otherwise never have found each other, or how email can revive old friendships and keep relationships alive, albeit in attenuated form, over long distances. If I communicated with my kids only via email or IM, that would be sad, but email is perfect for maintaining some friendships that would otherwise probably die away.

All in all, I’d say to save your money for a book that goes into a single topic of interest to you in more detail (and more even-handedly and rigorously) than iBrain does in its smorgasbord approach.

The joys of nostalgia

I have always been prone to nostalgia, even when you would have thought I was too young for it. It’s easy to regard this tendency as a character weakness; nostalgia gets bad press sometimes, being perceived as a sentimental waste of time, and it’s long been described as a psychological malady. However, a new paper surveys some recent research on the subject and recasts nostalgia as a psychological strength, a trick whereby we give our meat something to think about that makes us feel happier, more connected to others, and better about ourselves. This press release gives a brief overview, and the paper itself is, of course, much more interesting, if you can get your hands on it (Nostalgia: Past, Present, and Future, by Constantine Sedikides, Tim Wildschut, Jamie Arndt, and Clay Routledge. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5): 304–307)

One of the intriguing things I found in the paper is a comparison of people’s emotional reactions to recalling different kinds of experiences: positive, ordinary, nostalgic. Nostalgic experiences were unique in calling up both negative and positive emotions, but their net effect was likely to be a happy one. One study indicated that in nostalgic memories, even uncomfortable or unhappy events were often viewed side by side with happier ones, and this combination of the bitter and the sweet was perceived in terms of a redemption narrative that allowed loss or upset to be transmuted into something better.

It’s this ability to see the ebb and flow of experience as part of a bigger picture that may contribute to one of the benefits of nostalgia: a kinder view of one’s own self. The article itself quotes from another source to describe something that rang quite true for me:

Nostalgia has been theorized to bestow “an endearing luster” on the self and to cast “marginal, fugitive, and eccentric facets of earlier selves in a positive light”.

(The quotes are from Davis, F. (1979). Yearning for yesterday: A sociology of nostalgia. New York: Free Press, pp. 41–46.)

To return again to the emotion and music theme, this reminded me of how I feel sometimes when listening to music that I’ve known for a long time, particularly the music of the Moody Blues, which means a great deal to me and has accompanied me through many of the events of my life since my early 20s. Somehow looking back at the memories evoked by the music (memories of times both good and bad, and certainly encompassing some eccentric facets of my earlier selves) blends the many aspects of my past into a story that, for all its dark spots, looks lovable to me (rather than filling me with angst over the mistakes I’ve made and the things I’ve lost).

The paper also mentions a couple of other benefits of nostalgia: the alleviation of loneliness (by letting us relive memories of beloved people and recall our bonds with them) and the existential dread of knowing that we must die someday (by supplying a shared sense of meaning). All in all, a very nice rehabilitation of a phenomenon once seen as an illness!

The paper closes with some thoughts on areas that might merit further exploration, in particular the possibly changing role of nostalgia over the lifespan, and the ways nostalgia might provide a thread linking past and present selves and thus contribute to our sense of identity.

Antikythera Mechanism rebuilt

OK, this story is a bit off-topic for this blog, but it’s just too cool not to post. The Antikythera Mechanism, a 2100-year-old device that calculated and illustrated the motions of the sun, moon, and planets, has been reconstructed. The working replica was built by Michael Wright, who used to work at the Science Museum in London and who studied the device for years. You can read about it in Wired’s blog. There’s also a video of Wright demonstrating the device.

I’ve been thinking about why the story of the Antikythera Mechanism haunts me so. For starters, it’s about astronomy, and about the history of how we (small animals in a big place) learned about our surroundings. The device is beautiful in and of itself, especially if you like orreries and other astronomical gadgets and are fascinated by the patterns of various solar system cycles as seen from Earth. It represents some surprisingly advanced technology for its time, and prompts what-if thoughts about how it would have been if we hadn’t lost that technology (not to mention questions about the fragility of our current knowledge, and a sense of appreciation for the way we currently share and preserve what we know). It’s also a compelling object because it’s one reflection of the aggregate contents of the human mind with respect to knowledge of the solar system at the time, one that made its way to us despite being lost on the sea floor for centuries. As science stories go, it’s one of the more satisfying ones.

Does crying help?

The other day I was struggling with a particularly difficult editing assignment, and when I took a break, I said to a friend that it was so frustrating it made me want to cry. He responded that crying seldom helped anything, with which I disagreed; sometimes I find crying to be therapeutic. “Well, if you must,” he said. In the end I didn’t cry; I grabbed a few munchies and went back to the assignment.

But if only this press release from the Association for Psychological Science had come out a few days earlier, I would have had some research to back me up. Not everyone feels better after crying, but a lot of people do. It’s a short release, and part of it is about the difficulties of studying crying in the lab, which I can certainly believe are considerable. However, it also covers some recent research on crying incidents that happened outside the lab and were later described to researchers. Out of the 3,000 incidents they looked at, most people did report feeling better after crying, although one-third said that they didn’t notice any improvement, and one-tenth reported feeling worse. (The work is described in Is Crying Beneficial?, by Jonathan Rottenberg, Lauren M. Bylsma, and Ad J.J.M. Vingerhoets, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 400–404, 2008.)

So what’s the difference? It’s probably a long complicated story. However, what we know so far includes the fact that of the crying episodes reported, the people who received some emotional support were the most likely to feel better. On the other hand, people who are alexithymic (less able to name their emotional states) tend to feel worse after crying, and those with anxiety or other mood disorders tend not to feel better after crying. I expect there are a host of other variables, like personal history, how often you cry and how comfortable you are with it, who else is around and how they’re feeling. In my own case the other day, perhaps I was unconsciously weighing the variables: getting the assignment done was the thing most likely to bring relief, in those particular circumstances, so I buckled back down to it.

To tie this into the emotion and music thread, I’ve got a few CDs that I listen to only when I’m all by myself and not busy with anything that requires concentration, so they can work their full therapeutic magic. Every now and then, for example, I need to put on U2’s All That You Can’t Leave Behind and just let go and cry. Some of the lyrics are emotionally intense, particularly in the song Kite, which is about the death of a parent and which I first heard about six months after my mother died. But the album ends with a gentle, hopeful ballad, and by the end of that song I feel calm and peaceful. For however much I paid for that CD, it’s got to be the cheapest form of therapy.

The meaning of “life”

A time-worn joke about humans is that we’re nothing more than water’s way of getting from one place to another. What if living things in general began as just another of nature’s ways of moving energy from one place to another? (Or more precisely, of minimizing energy differences by increasing energy flows from one part of their environment to another.) This article fromPhysOrg.com describes the work of a father-son team of Finnish scientists whose investigations into why life began blur the line between animate and inanimate matter.

Their recent paper in the International Journal of Astrobiology describes living processes as being simply one of the mechanisms by which entropy increases. Seen from a thermodynamic point of view, all the cool complexity that characterizes the natural world and that fascinates us is perhaps simply a byproduct, but, as with so many human behavioral and emotional phenomena, it’s quite a fascinating by-product. [Annila, Arto and Annila, Erkki, Why Did Life Emerge?, International Journal of Astrobiology 7 (3 & 4):293–300 (2008), available from arxiv.org]

While you’re pondering that, consider also some fascinating new bits of information about the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. First, we have news from Hubble about the discovery of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of a roughly Jupiter-sized planet orbiting another star (a planet where methane and water vapor have already been identified in the atmosphere). Although this particular planet is too hot to support life, this finding is an encouraging indicator of our growing ability to detect specific life-related molecules in the atmospheres of distant planets.

And, in a striking observational feat, a group of astronomers has been able to measure the size of an extrasolar planet using an extremely sensitive new detector. The news is summarized in this ScienceDaily article; the paper is available from arXiv.org. The camera, which can detect minute changes in the brightness of a star, imaged the transit of the planet across the star’s surface (like what we saw with the sun and Venus in 2004). From the resulting (tiny) drop in the star’s brightness as the planet progressed across its surface, the astronomers were able to determine the planet’s size, finding that it is smaller than previously estimated and in fact is one of the denser extrasolar planets found so far. Again, this new capability bodes well for the future.

Emotions and music

A few weeks back, I posted about how listening to music that makes you happy might have beneficial cardiovascular effects. As I wrote the post, I happened to be listening to something by Brahms that made me feel joyful, and one of the comments mentioned another joyful Brahms piece. It got me started thinking about not only what music makes me feel particularly joyful, but why, and about the possibility of a mismatch between the emotion that music is expressing and the emotion that you feel when you listen to it.

For example, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony is famously “about” joy; the last movement contains a choral setting of part of Schiller’s Ode to Joy. But if I were looking for music to make me feel joyful, it’s not necessarily the first piece I’d pick. For one thing, it’s been a part of my life for a long time, and so it’s layered over with many associations, including memories of my mother, who loved the piece and who I miss. Aside from these complexities, though, is the fact that the music evokes not just the feelings of joy it describes, but a certain wistfulness. The chorus sings of all men being brothers, and the news is full of stories about what divides us. If I were picking a Beethoven symphony to make me feel happy, I’d probably pick something lighter and less freighted with complex meanings, like the Eighth or Seventh.

Sometimes music that is comforting picks up associations of the bad times when you’ve leaned on it. I heard the REM song “Everybody Hurts” on the radio today, and much as I love it, I felt vaguely uneasy to hear it. I’ve hung onto those words through too many losses for it not to evoke the pain of loss to some degree. My favorite band, far and away, is the Moody Blues, and I’ve noticed that at some point as I slide into a depression, I stop listening to their music. At first I wondered why this should be; much of their work really resonates for me, and, unusually, I will sometimes find new meanings in one of their songs that I’ve heard hundreds of times before. You’d think I would need their music more, not less, as depression looms.

But after awhile I realized that there were two pretty good reasons for not listening to their music once I was seriously down (although perhaps earlier in the process it might keep me from getting that far down in the first place). First, I didn’t want it to get tainted by association (although that’s far less likely for music that I listen to as frequently, under as many different circumstances, as I do theirs). More important, when I’m really down, I don’t respond to the music, and that’s almost sadder than being depressed in the first place—to reach out to a familiar joy and find only emptiness. (Or maybe that’s the essence of being depressed. The clinical word anhedonia doesn’t sound anywhere near chilling enough to describe that experience, if you ask me.)

Conversely, sometimes music about bad times can be powerfully uplifting, maybe because it’s cathartic to get it all out and to realize you’re not alone and people do survive being unhappy (is this why listening to the blues makes people feel better?). Sometimes—this may be rare—an unhappy song can help you put things in perspective and maybe even take life less seriously. There’s a song by the Smiths called “Heaven Knows I’m Miserable Now”; years ago one of my brothers put it on a mix tape for me that he labeled “Good music to be depressed to.” I don’t know how other people take that song, but it always makes me laugh because it’s so over-the-top and self-pitying in its description of the singer’s misery. I have to laugh at myself.

Sometimes the emotional meaning of a piece of music is something of a mystery. I first heard Samuel Barber’s Adagio for Strings, which originated as a movement in a string quartet, when it was used in the Vietnam War movie Platoon, which I’m sure flavored my initial impressions of it. But I might have found it sad anyway; it’s a notoriously gloomy piece, played at mournful occasions and making the short list for the saddest classical piece ever, according to those who listen to BBC’s “Today” program. For years I could hardly bear to listen to it; to me, it evoked a sunless, airless desolation.

But one Thanksgiving about ten years ago, I saw a friend listening to a recording of the Adagio, I think by the Kronos Quartet. She loved the Adagio and played it several times; she appeared exalted by it. She lifted her face and leaned into the music—she looked like someone facing into a strong wind, braced and exhilarated by it. Her reaction astonished me at the time. I’ve since seen my own reaction change; I don’t find it exhilarating, but the last time I heard it live, it seemed to evoke something of the beauty of “emotion recollected in tranquillity” that Wordsworth said was the origin of poetry. It was like sitting inside, warm and dry, watching a storm that you’ve recently been out in. I wonder what further emotional complexities might emerge from this piece with future hearings.

OK, one last story about sadness and music and I’ll stop. While I was very slowly emerging from a long blue winter (I still felt firmly embedded in it, but in fact was only several weeks away from the breaking of the emotional ice and the arrival of spring), I heard an excellent performance of Beethoven’s string quartet no. 15. Beethoven labeled the third movement of this quartet “Holy Song of Thanksgiving to the Divinity by a Convalescent”; he was writing it after an illness that he had thought might be fatal. The Orion Quartet performed the piece here at IU, and they did a superb job, especially with this slow movement; I wept quietly (I hope) through the whole thing. The emotion Beethoven was expressing was gratitude, but what I was feeling was a powerful longing. I didn’t analyze it in so many words until much later, but what I was feeling was something like, “When am I going to get to the other side of this and be a thankful convalescent?” I’m very curious, and a little worried, about what the piece will sound like to me on second hearing, in much less emotionally wrung-out circumstances. But the mismatch between the expressed and evoked emotions stuck with me.

Thinking about joy and music seems to have led me down some rather dark paths. Someday I’ll say more about happiness and music—for example, about the many varieties of happiness, from the solemn joy of Beethoven’s Ninth to…oh, the heady exuberance of some of Handel’s Water Music, maybe, or the effervescence of a Rossini overture. Meanwhile, if you have any thoughts about the meaning of music, or the difference between what the words or music are saying and how they make you feel, please let me know.

Complex, sacred nature

One possible way to unify a big-history narrative is to use the theme of growing complexity in the universe. Stuart Kauffman studies complexity and self-organization; in particular, he believes that self-organization might play an important role in evolution, along with natural selection. He has recently written a book, Reinventing the Sacred, about his approach to moving away from a purely reductionist science and toward a science infused with meaning and even a sense of the sacred (a totally naturalistic sense, not a belief in a supernatural being). Kauffman talked about the book in an interview with Salon and has written an essay for Edge.org that’s excerpted from the book.

In the Salon interview, Kauffman says that having a shared sense of the sacred in nature might give the emerging global culture something to converge on (to counteract what he describes as a natural retreat into fundamentalism on the part of some people). This reminded me a bit of what David Christian said about a big-history narrative serving as a secular creation story. However, while what Christian said really resonated for me, Kauffman takes the idea much further, into places I’m not entirely comfortable with. For one thing, Christian noted that he wanted to draw a line between religion and what he was talking about with regard to big history, whereas Kauffman seems to be blurring that sort of line. (And I really don’t know what to think about his idea, mentioned in passing in the Salon interview, that there might be some connection between quantum physics and consciousness.) Still, he makes some good points and some provocative points, and I think the book will definitely be worth reading. (Anyone already read it and have any comments on it?)