Blogcritics: Comments on The New Brain

Comment by Mac Diva

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 21:21:27 EDT

The dictionary I just consulted, Sherlock's Merriam-Webster, has no 'note' attached to pabulum. As somone who has scored in the 98 to 100 percentile of verbal tests taken since first grade, I think I am pretty good with language. I would never say 'whinge' for whine. Clubhouse had no trouble tracking the usage of 'pabulum.' A hat tip to him. I like the word and it is acceptable usage. Will stick with it. As for Phil's attempt at oneupmanship, like I said, try again. (BTW, 'oneupmanship' can be spelled with a hyphen, but I am going to leave that for Phil to criticize.)

Comment by Maura

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:55:03 EDT

Justene, you certainly know more on the subject than I do. In this way your opinion has more weight on the subject, and I have no problem acknowledging that. I did not say that anyone was "right" in their theories, by the way. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I always listen carefully to those who phrase their arguments well and have have experience and research on the subject. Everyone has a bias, and I take that into account too of course. I agree that it's important to question theories and not accept them blindly. I always keep that in mind when I'm researching.

Comment by Justene

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:33:48 EDT

I have superior curiousity and motive and experience, but not nearly enough knowledge to be deferred to. This is such a quickly changing area and I am reading and going to review a book on child-management that is completely new. Can't do a quick read though, because I need the info. I am reading everything you and the others said and considering it all. I just react negatively to any implication that someone (including Restak) is right because of study or experience. In 50 years, I expect we'll realize we were all naive.

Comment by Shark

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:29:18 EDT

Neurotoxins. End of story. Pab... pablu.. pabulu... ugh. Color me gone.

Comment by Maura

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:28:22 EDT

Justene, please read what I said: "...I wonder if it has been a *contributing* factor. I doubt it's the whole reason." I also mentioned that I figured other environmental reasons could be a factor. I have not claimed to be an expert on the subject. I related my personal experience in conjunction with my reading on the subject. I tried to keep my comments based on what I know of the facts. This is all that I suggested that people do. I acknowlege that you have far more experience, and study, in the area and I will defer to your superior understanding of the subject.

Comment by Justene

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:00:47 EDT

Maura, basing a conclusion on one family with an ADD child isn't much better than what you're suggesting MD is doing. I have studied this area intensely. I have 2 bipolar children, the first of which went through every diagnosis in the book, know many parents with ADD children, and have started a program to teach religius instruction to severely disabled children. I have perused an awful lot of the literature out there and gone to a fair amount of training. (I also have a BA in psychology but we weren't discussing ADD back then). With that passing interaction with the issue, I would not claim half the knowledge I see passing through here. I think this is fascinating and we should challenge some assumptions. Restak has a theory but no one has the answer in this area.

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:47:07 EDT

OK, well, Phil, I'm not sure where the hostility comes from, but Fowler likes "pabulum." Webster's 11th Collegiate, too. So, as I said, I think either is OK. AP prefers "pablum," and it's more recent, so, as I said before, I'd probably go with "pablum." But the other's not wrong, either. Maybe just a little old-fashioned. Your assertion that people don't care about their usage is pure crap. Overreaching conclusions based on scant evidence can be fun, though.

Comment by Maura

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:38:56 EDT

Hey Philip, if whinge and whine are perfectly acceptable words, then why do you think Americans shouldn't use whinge? Personally, I think each word has a slightly different connotation. Perhaps people in the USA are using whinge in the proper context. Lastly, I'm amazed that I've responded on this issue. The irony of the subject matter does not elude me. ;) I'm off to remind myself that I have a life! :)

Comment by Maura

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:30:54 EDT

Mac Diva, I'd agree with you that it beats spam. :) If there is going to be debate about whether ADD is just a middle class excuse for lousy parenting skills then it would be great if people stuck to facts, and not opinions. Restak makes some good arguments about the prevalence of ADD, but I'm not enough of an expert on the subject to counter his evidence. As it happens, I know someone whose son has been diagnosed with ADD, and was put on medication to cope with it. This was not a course that was taken lightly, but as it turns out he's responded very well to it, and finds it a great help for his concentration. He's not forced to take the medication (which he takes only during school days), but does so voluntarily because it allows him to focus and study. The kid is highly intelligent and aces all standardised tests. Knowing the family rather well I'm inclined not to think that this is some invented problem for attention. The parents are involved and concerned with the boy and they have a good relationship--well, as good as it gets when your kid is a teen! ;) Looking at the evidence that Restak offers, and knowing the kid's history of being an early TV consumer and video game addict, then I wonder if it has been a *contributing* factor. I doubt it's the whole reason. I also think that Shark has a point about the environmental effects on people today, since this is a subject in which I'm interested about which I know a little. Basically, I think there is merit to Restak's arguments, but I can't endorse them completely without doing more research. Since I'm interested in the subject, I might well do that. I'm sure "the happy brain" might sound a bit twee, but in the chapter Restak looks at how our brain integrates pleasurable experiences, and his focuses particularly on how music effects us positively. Again, I find it strange that you might come to a snap decision that you will or will not like a book without first reading it. However, I do hope you read it and let us know what you think.

Comment by Justene

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:21:35 EDT

Twice now I've linked to sources to demonstrate that "pablum" is the preferred usage, and twice I've been answered by people without sources. Clearly nobody is interested in improving their word usage, and that's fine. This is the internet, after all, where apparently nobody cares. Some of us care but don't like to publicly post that we didn't know this already.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:15:14 EDT

I'm well aware of the existence of "pabulum" as a food substance. I linked to a definition above, remember? However, the usage of the word to describe similarly-bland non-food material is described as far back as 1913 as derivative of "pablum," not the other way around, and not just since the 1940s. The increased recent usage of "pabulum" instead of "pablum" reminds me of the spread of "whinge" on the net. Yes, it is technically correct, very British, and can be traced back roughly to Middle English, but there is no good reason for an American writer to use the word instead of the more-common "whine." We have standardized a great many things about the language since the 18th and 19th centuries, after all. Twice now I've linked to sources to demonstrate that "pablum" is the preferred usage, and twice I've been answered by people without sources. Clearly nobody is interested in improving their word usage, and that's fine. This is the internet, after all, where apparently nobody cares.

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:04:10 EDT

Actually, Phil, the "correct" word for soft-headed, easy-to-take, bland writing or speech is "pabulum," a word which goes back to the 18th century and means a kind of gruel or pasty, easy-to-digest cream of wheat kind of stuff. It's been used metaphorically just about since the same time. A company trademarked the name "pablum" for a cereal like that in the 40's, and the older word has slowly been replaced. I think either is OK, but I'll admit "pablum" is more popular now, and I might change it were I editing for a popular outlet, because people might think it was a mistake. But MacDiva gets the benefit of the doubt from me. I think she probably knows all this and picked "pabulum" on purpose, which is cool with me.

Comment by Mac Diva

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:00:47 EDT

I don't know that having a thread focus in on a given aspect of a topic mentioned is all that bad, Maura. Beats the hell out of having one's entry spammed by the porn people or a visit of crudity spewing Roger Ely. I think people focused on ADD because it is a common basis for middle-class people claiming 'modern life' is causing defiencies in low-achieving offspring, as if they can't just happen to have slow kids. The book sounds like something I would be disagreeing with from page one (the 'happy mind'? Please!), but I will give it a look if I see it at the library.

Comment by Maura

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 17:52:39 EDT

I'm surprised at the level of attention this post has garnered among the blogcritics. I'm also amused at how much more is being read into what I actually wrote. I wonder if some of you read the original piece, or are just reading the comments? 1) The book is a basic introduction that covers a wide range of related subjects. ADD only gets one chapter. If you already know the field, then this is not the book for you. I'd certainly defer to anyone with more knowledge of the text books covering the subject. 2) I said that anyone with "decent mental ability" could achieve "excellence" in their area of speciality, since the evidence--which is quoted--supports this. (Whether the data is correct or not, is a whole other issue. Since Restak seems to be a respected author and scientist then I'm assuming he's not inventing research--though, of course, he has his bias.) One of the biggest factors is the motivation and drive to spend hours polishing your talent. I find it strange that people can counter this notion with generalisations and annoyance when they have not read the material for themselves. 3) This is a review. I'm trying to hit the points that were of interest to me. I hope I'm representing the author's opinions, in a condensed fashion, but if you want to be sure then read the book.

Comment by Mac Diva

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 17:50:53 EDT

Nope. I meant to say 'pabulum.' Both are acceptable spellings like 'alarum' and 'alarm.' Loved Dickens, Hardy and Austen as a child. Try again, Phil.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 17:00:55 EDT

MD, I'm pretty sure that you meant to say 'pablum,' not 'pabulum.' Many people confuse the two, enough so that dictionary.com now lists the definition for 'pablum' under 'pabulum' with a note explaining that sense of the word comes "by confusion with pablum."

Comment by Mac Diva

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:16:37 EDT

Duane said what I'm thinking to an extent. The claim that every white, middle-class, American child or adult is a 'secret' genuis is utter nonsense. (Heck, one could change that to five percent and still be accurate.) The reason the claim is made is because of the incredible egotism of many people in that category. It is only a half-step to not being able to admit their mediocrity to claiming their teen who can't keep still is suffering from the contemporary diet or that their diapered, non-verbal tween is responding to his booster shots, not inherent retardation. In the adult context, one sees grown folks bragging about their alleged brilliance, but producing nothing that supports the claim. (And, often, harrassing anyone who does demonstrate above average ability in a skill.) The whole 'we are hot sh!t' pose by people who usually can't write a grammatical sentence or compute simple percentages at the shopping mall is pathetic. I wish people would not write books egging it on. But, considering the size of the audience, such pabulum is likely to sell well.

Comment by Shark

Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:27:25 EDT

"...Problems which have probably existed forever, such as short attention spans and autism, are suddenly claimed to be the product of something in the contemporary environment when they likely are not." (You have a right to an informed opinion; 'informed' being the operative word here.) Your above statement is wrong in a number of ways; and btw, the 'cause' of *autism will probably turn out to be neurotoxins, heavy metals, etc. in our ENVIRONMENT -- which have increased dramatically over the last few decades. (There is already some evidence to support this; but more needed.) *also possibly breast cancer, immune-problems, Alzheimers, ADD, and plenty more. There is also an epidemic of Autism; (whether you agree or disagree with mental health professionals 'science', techniques, and methods of classification, those are other debates) -- but according to mental health professionals, Austism is almost out of control and getting worse every year. from: http://www.autism.org/califepidemic.html

"...According to the latest figures just released by the California Department of Developmental Services, in 2002 California experienced an astounding 31% one year increase in the number of new children professionally diagnosed with the most severe cases of autism entering it's developmental services system. The 31% one year increase from 2001 to 2002 represents an all time record number of new cases in the system's 33 year history.... 3,577 new severely autistic children added in just the past 12 months. The figures reported by the Department DO NOT include persons with PDD, NOS, Asperger's, or any other autism spectrum disorders, just those who have received a professional diagnosis of level one, DSM IV autism. According to the Department, eight years ago, in 1994, there were 5,108 cases of level one autism in the entire system, as of January 6, 2003, there are now 20,377 cases of level one autism in the system. From 1971 to 1980, California consistently added one to two hundred new cases a YEAR. In 2002, California added 3,577 new cases. Since 1980, the documented start of California's autism epidemic, the numbers of new cases have exploded to where we are today with California adding, on average, 10 new children a day, 7 days a week with the most severe form of autism to it's system, an increase of over 2 additional new children per day over the 2001 rate of 8 children a day. Keep in mind that from January 1994 to January 1995, California added on average 2 new children a day.....today we are adding 10 children a day. One only needs to examine the age distribution of the persons in the system to recognize the genesis of this epidemic. Over 81.5% (8 out of 10) of the autism population in the system were born AFTER 1980.... with 2 out of 3 persons in the system currently between the ages of 3 and 13 years old, compared to 18.5% (less then 2 out of 10) who were born BEFORE 1980..."

Note that those born AFTER 1980, ie. have critical (early) development during the worst (increasing) pollution periods are where they're seeing the problems. It will turn out to be directly related to our toxic environment, but again, Postman demonstrates that TV is making us all just a tad bit retarded. BTW: Duane, just for the record, I agree with you re. genius, etc. -- We won't produce a Newton by the sheer force of 'dedication'.

Comment by CW Fisher

Tue, 6 Jul 2004 21:21:10 EDT

Maura, great post, and I like your reasoned responses to good questions. You put into a few paragraphs many things I knew I knew or read somewhere and thought I knew. But now I know. You know? Thanks. --My brain

Comment by Duane

Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:39:31 EDT

"Everyone with a decent mental ability can achieve excellence in a speciality if s/he is willing to put in the hard work." That depends very much on the particular specialty. I would say that competence is attainable, not necessarily excellence. "We discover that the difference between a genius and a talented amateur is the dedication of the genius." That is a crock. The author is trying to make us feel good about ourselves, so we will buy the book and comfort ourselves with this happy, but bogus, notion. But, then again, the term "genius" is often applied to those who are merely competent.

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 6 Jul 2004 19:59:56 EDT

I don't think the human mind has changed much over millenia. What has changed is the rise of a population, affluent Westerners, who have trouble accepting limitations or acknowledging defects in themselves and their offspring. Problems which have probably existed forever, such as short attention spans and autism, are suddenly claimed to be the product of something in the contemporary environment when they likely are not. Restak's book sounds like pabulum meant to reassure such people. 'Brain candy,' if you will.

Comment by Blog Bloke

Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:02:44 EDT

"Unless one picks up a book and follows the linear/narrative thread" Thanks Shark for nailing it for me because I alsways start from the index and work backwards. Should explain a lot of things ;-)

Comment by Shark

Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:35:02 EDT

"They should reject the quick jumpy exposure." That's the point! They can't; it's ubiquitous. Unless one picks up a book and follows the linear/narrative thread, re-reading, digesting, and taking one's time, the only exposure we get to "information" is the kind that enters the eye in quick, relatively meaningless bits. Justene, I suggest you read Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death". While not directly related to the ADD issue, it does explain the huge difference between a typographically oriented brain -vs- a context-less, image bombarded 'multi-tasking' brain. Needless to say, one's ability to ponder, process, and digest information suffers. IMO, there's not even a debate: "ADD" is a rampant epidemic among video-addicted kids and others who have grown up since the advent of MTV and quick-cut techniques. Fast flowing, smash-cut, out-of-context images have helped to create a population with less patience, especially when it comes to information. The evidence is everywhere: film, movies, tv, commercials, music videos, even the news; witness the 'crawl' instigated a few years ago. Compare "McNeil-Leher" news on PBS to the 22 minute soundbite surf of the major networks nightly news. World-changing events wrapped up in 5 second soundbites. Twenty-five cuts in your average 30 sec. commercial. Try getting someone between 12 and 35 to watch an old classic film that takes its time with character and plot development -- or worse, check out what they're reading; if it takes more than 5 minutes, they'll probably give up on it. Conversely, check out most films today: they open with a bang, stay at breakneck speed, value flash, explosions, car chases, and smash cuts over long, lingering character and plot developments. I don't think "Lawrence of Arabia" or any Bergman films could be made today -- with their slow, long, deliberate, lingering shots, their snail's pace, etc. BTW: You got any kids? Or been around any kids lately?

Comment by Justene

Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:19:02 EDT

I am just not convinced this analysis is correct. If you have people inclined to think slowly and coherently, it does not make sense that giving out information in short doses would cause them to change and start developing ADD type thinking. They should reject the quick jumpy exposure. Indeed, I think we all know people like that -- who just slow you down when it gets incoherent. Instead, we gravitate quite happily towards the quick and the jumpy. I doubt information providers would be handing it out that way if people didn't wanr to consume it that way. Granted, I have not read Restak. That presents a dilemma. Do I spend money and reading time on a book that I think doesn't make a sensible proposal to look at his studies and evaluate his methods? Or do I reject it sight unseen and move on to something else?

Comment by Maura

Tue, 6 Jul 2004 05:09:28 EDT

Jane, Restak points out that some ADD is inherited, but that enough instances of it crop up, with no instances of inheritence, to point to ADD being culturally induced. What Restak shows is the pace at which are lives are lived at the moment pre-disposes most people towards ADD. "As a result of our 'make it quick' culture, attention deficit is becoming the paradigmatic disorder of our times. Indeed, ADD/ADHD isn't so much a disorder as it is a cognitive style. In fact, in order to be successful in today's workplace you have to incorporate some elements of ADD/ADHD. You must learn to rapidly process information, function amidst surroundings your parents would have described as 'chaotic', always remain prepared to shift rapidly from one activity to another and redirect your attention among competing tasks without becoming bogged down or losing time. Such facility in rapid information processing requires profound alterations in our brain. " pp 57-58 I did say that this was a introduction to the subject of how the brain works, and Restak only devotes one chapter to ADD. However, he does refer to plenty of other thorough texts on the subjects for those who want to do more indepth study.