Can neuroscience give my brain the plasticity of a child's?
aeon.coA much better overview:
http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics
I am a bit torn about this subject. So, in my day job as a biomedical researcher, we would like to have a lot of evidence that something works before giving it to people.
But the FDA/research system is not set up to deal with things like this, that are not to treat a disease per se, but rather to enhance a healthy human. Many MDs would see cognitive enhancement as "cosmetic" and not worth any level of risk. You will note how almost all the evidence for putative nootropics comes from AD and similar research. Not healthy, young or middle-aged normals.
I almost wish there were some kind of network for DIY biohackers to investigate nootropics by setting up blinded studies. Because that kind of research will not otherwise be funded or performed, and despite the risks and dubiousness of data that comes outside the IRB/clinical trial system, it seems better than nothing.
>But the FDA/research system is not set up to deal with things like this, that are not to treat a disease per se, but rather to enhance ... healthy, young or middle-aged normals.
So how did plastic surgery get through? Would that kind of procedure not be approved today under current standards? Would they be allowed to experiment at all, given the (in the FDA's view) limited benefits?
Most plastic surgery is not drug-based, so there is a lot less research that needs to be done on the molecular level to get it through. Much like nootropics, plastic surgery also has a use-case for "diseased" people: people born deformed or injured in accidents.
The big exception is Botox (aka botulinium toxin). Yes, the safety standards were a little lower in the 1960s, when it was being researched for therapeutic use. But also, botulinium toxin is very heavily researched because it is a useful molecular tool in other contexts, so we know quite well how it works, even though it is an extremely dangerous substance if used improperly. For many nootropics, we just don't know.
And if anything, the standards for something that is supposed to be operating on the brain are even higher than those applied to facial muscles, skin, etc.
Neat. I take Modafinil or its enantiomer Nuvigil sometimes to be smarter or compensate for lack of sleep. Officially, it's for sleep apnea, which I had to take a sleep test to show. I don't see zero risk for cosmetic surgery (note the issues with any surgery), so perhaps that can serve as an analogue as we look more into enhancing "normal" people.
Sure. I get great results from Adderall and have heard good things about Modafinil. Tried it once with little effect, but it was from an Indian pharmacy and who knows how pure it was. I can't draw any conclusions whatsoever from this. Similarly, some people swear by racetams but I have adverse reactions to them (tired, eye strain, bad moods).
The internet is chock full of anecdotes about various nootropics, but very little empirical data. Gwern (linked above) tries to blind himself in some of his experiments, which is good, but still N=1.
What needs to happen is, IMO, people interested in nootropics sign up for a "trial", pay for the drug and any minor equipment needed to test efficacy, the trial administrator gets a pure sample of the drug and sends it out blinded to the participants. Then the results could be collected and possibly even published (in a journal that doesn't have an IRB requirement).
It could go even further if people could cough up the cash for a cheap genetic variation test like 23andme, and then the efficacy could be correlated with genetic variants.
But as it is, we are in the absolute dark ages about our knowledge about nootropic efficacy in normals. It is complicated by the fact that the most likely candidates are often controlled substances.
I would maybe classify Modafanil as a nootropic, but Adderall is a stimulant - Amphetamine.
Almighty Wikipedia: nootropics are "drugs, supplements, nutraceuticals, and functional foods that improve one or more aspects of mental function, such as working memory, motivation, and attention"
Potentially a very broad category, which absolutely includes, but is not limited to, stimulants (within a therapeutic dose range). Also, as you can see on the same Wikipedia page, there is an entire category of nootropic stimulants, including the widely used caffeine and nicotine.
Ah, thanks. Only had Adderall once, and it didn't feel the same. Modafinil had a much more subtle effect, with few downsides (just don't overdo caffeine while on it).
Isn't the military looking into nootropics ? I'm not really sure how legitimate this link is but . . . http://hplusmagazine.com/2013/03/12/the-coming-revolution-in...
I've definitely heard of some military folks looking into nootropics pretty heavily in the specific context of training drone pilots. Since those drones cost 1.3 million usd.
It seems strange, they wouldn't have some ivy league scientists on the experiments as well.
Considering the cat/kitten experiment, where the more plastic brain was able to permanently re-purpose brain cells from one task to another, it seems slightly dangerous. Suppose I take the pill, go to the music classes, and end up an excellent mountain dulcimer player---and then find out that I accidentally overwrote my programming ability? :)
Exactly. There is a reason for the plasticity decay
Real life RPG! Take the pill and you get +15 music, -20 programming.
It's much worse than that. You'll erase everything, and likely won't be able to hold on to the new skills unless the plasticity was temporary.
Brain plasticity evolves in very specific ways. Simplified you could say that a young brain learns "short-term" things. It learns things (and learns how to cause things) that last tens of microseconds at and just after birth, then over the years moves to seconds, minutes, hours and longer.
But circuits are massively redundant. Until you lose about 90% of the part of the brain that fulfils a certain function, you won't notice a thing. Go over that, and ...
Every memory, every skill, everything in your brain is built on the basic premise that the shorter term neurocircuits work a certain way, that they have solidified. Every memory made when you were 10 years old is filtered through and interpreted by circuits established when you were 9. Memories made when you were 11, get filtered through the 10 year circuits, then the 9 year circuits, then ...
So if a neurocircuit changes that was built when you were 14 years EVERYTHING after that is gone. Every memory younger than when you were 14 years old gets filtered through the now-scrambled 14 year old circuits, which will transform it into noise, which the rest of the brain will promptly ignore.
This is why you regularly have demented people thinking they are much younger than they actually are, failing to remember they have kids, and so on. They suddenly start doing what they did at that age as well, leaving for work at 6am despite being pensioned for 30 years, in many cases to companies that have long since ceased to exist. Not recognizing kids (and especially grandkids). Note that this is usually emotionally very, very hard for those kids.
So if you successfully reset your brain to the plasticity it had when you were 14, every memory, every skill, every detail after that will disappear. The next day you will wake up, likely terrified, in a room you think you've never seen before, wondering where your mother is, not knowing what the hell a cell phone is. If there is damage that did not just do a one-time scramble of the circuit, but actually keeps it from re-solidifying, you will wake up like that every day of the rest of your life, not remembering the day before.
It also works in reverse : you can teach kids about long term effects (e.g. money) for months, and it just won't stick. Don't be fooled they'll be able to repeat the lesson back to you, but they can't apply knowledge that improves their long-term situation because it gets erased.
"I hit a plateau..." "I haven't picked up my dulcimer in several months"
In my experience learning instruments follows a 90/10 sort of rule, you can get the easy stuff in a matter of weeks, the harder stuff is subject to severe diminishing returns. You have to practice much more to make the relevant progress. That virtuoso is not a virtuoso because he practiced as a child when he had neuro plasticity, he's a virtuoso because he practices hours a day and then thinks about his practicing when he's not practicing. Even someone who is a moderately good professional does this.
Same for sports. You'll improve extremely quickly in the beginning, then you'll hit a plateau and you have to train much longer and harder to improve.
Has anybody shown that having an adult brain with non-child plasticity is a limitation?
I find that my progress on guitar is a direct function of time, which is something else that children have in abundance but adults do not.
Try learning a language.
I have. Probably the hardest one for English speakers--Japanese.
Again, my progress is solely a function of time. If I could spend 8+ hours a day on it like a child, I suspect I would become very good.
I could see pro's and con's. Non-child plasticity might help evade indoctrination or the effects of advertising.
I'm very sceptical of drugs that interfere with neural function. Our brain is extremely complex, with dozens (or hundreds?) of chemicals interacting in intricate manners. We understand not even a tiny fraction of it, just some bits and pieces, and we think we can "fix" or even improve it by ingesting some chemical compound?
Even the few psycho-active medicines we have, anti-depressants etc., barely work at all. They might have some positive effects in studies, but if you actually know someone who depends on such medication, you'll know that they're far from a cure; many people even refuse to take them because of the terrible side effects. And those are pills we have a few decades of experience with!
I'm not holding my breath for a wonder drug that will miraculously engance our learning ability.
My answer is "no". Just because the initial pruning has to quickly find a balance between efficiency, speed and reliability vs. width, breadth of input/processing of new data. The 15,000 synapses/neuron that we have grown at around age 3 must be cut in half... After that, plasticity is still there and possibly can be boosted somewhat but not to the initial level. We have enough potential for plasticity left to learn and discover until an advanced age but it will require more work (i.e. expense of energy) and more sustained stimulation because the brain now needs to be "convinced" that it's going to be useful (i.e. rewarding) which our robotic lives doesn’t really allow, let alone promotes.
Would that be a good idea?
I could certainly see MANY potential dangers inherent in such a thing. Sure neuroplasticity sounds like it's all sunshine and kittens... but there's a good chance that there are some reasons our brains didn't evolve to retain that sort of plasticity throughout life...
That being said, if there is an experiment which has a decent chance of accomplishing this, I will be first to volunteer. I am aware that it may destroy me entirely, but I would be willing to take the risk. If nothing else, perhaps I'd be able to make a little contribution to the collective knowledge of mankind by showing how terrible of a thing too much neuroplasticity can be.
Bit of a tangent, but I just finished reading Spark which shines some light on how exercise can improve neuroplasticity. https://books.google.com/books?id=zM_9Ft1j40UC&lpg=PT36&dq=p...
It's always important to keep in mind that these things can be double-edged swords. There may be a tradeoff between plasticity and things like depth of focus on single subjects or the wide-ranging associations that characterize "wisdom."
Absolutely not saying we shouldn't play with this stuff, just that the fact that systems are full of trade-offs should be remembered.
The brain is an absurdly complex, adaptive system that is the product of millions of years of evolution. We're not even really sure where personality and the "me" part of the self come from, other than that they seem to have a stronger genetic component than most people realize. We don't understand how it works remotely well enough to have a useful whole-brain model of its function (which means a lot of drug research is a primitive try-it-and-see-what-happens method, rather than the result of a detailed functional model of what SHOULD happen). We don't understand most of its more subtle pathologies (like depression) well enough to even properly evaluate treatments. Most treatments we do have for such things are of limited and short-term efficacy, and we don't even understand why they work. Maybe we're not nearly ready to start large-scale manipulation of its fundamental properties?
I'm not as pessimistic as most about the potential for nootropics. The usual argument against them states that if there was a way to significantly improve neural performance, evolution would have found it already.
However, our bodies and brains evolved in an environment of near constant food scarcity, where surplus glucose was the chief constraint on neural development.
Can you imagine the developmental pathways that could be opened if our bodies could leverage the massive amounts of excess energy we consume for more than stuffing it into adipose tissue?
I don't get this "Child's brains are better" thing. A Child needs up to 10 years to speak, read and write correctly in their native language. An adult can do it in a couple of years, months sometimes (not my case!)
I have a small kid and yes, their intelligence development is shocking and completely unlike any other creature on earth. But are there any proof that childrens are actually better/faster at anything than an adult?
>But are there any proof that childrens are actually better/faster at anything than an adult?
Feral Children say otherwise. Chances are if you missed the ability topic to pick up language in your first 5-9 years, you will never learn language at all.
> A Child needs up to 10 years to speak, read and write correctly in their native language. An adult can do it in a couple of years, months sometimes.
Er, what? Can you cite any research that an adult with no prior language can acquire language proficiency faster than a child with no prior language?
Learning a second language is not the same as learning a first language. There are many things you use from your first language that you use to learn a second.
Ok scratch language. What about maths, or programming? My personal theory is that the only advantage kids have over adults its lots of free time. Not a small advantage, that is.
> My personal theory is that the only advantage kids have over adults its lots of free time.
And is your "theory" informed by the research results in neuroscience, or is it just idle speculation?
Most adults can never learn another language without an accent no matter how many years they practice. Children do it easily.
Can you explain this?
Need proof of this. I've known several adults that have no accent. I'm not saying that disproves your statement, just that we need some research.
Do you really want to be that plastic? Mania may result because all your enforced norms suddenly become malleable. The ruts in the road serve a purpose.
The author lost me at 'sewing the eyes shut of newborn kittens'. Sometimes animal testing is necessary, and sometimes it's unnecessarily cruel.
No...? I found this article to be a lot of puff with a relatively simplistic interpretation of some cherry picked research.
Yes, for example, in second language acquisition the hypothesis of a critical period has been pretty much disproven. Also, the conflation of perfect pitch with musical ability is a big stumble. Still, quite an interesting article.
All I take is 2000mg of B12 twice a (work) day which does seem to help in concentration.
The issue is that especially with metrics as flexible as "concentration" or "focus" (which in some cases can be controlled entirely by your mood, location, or your own willful intent), the placebo effect can be very powerful. Keep taking them, because it's probably not hurting, but it's difficult to know if it is empirically affecting your concentration outside of the placebo effect.
Are you sure it's 2000mg, and not 2000mcg? There's a 3 orders of magnitude difference!
It's a great question but things have a price. You might hack and win that raised plasticity but you might compromise your memory.
Natural Selection put there a decay in brain's plasticity for a really good and time proven reason.
This is just an hypothesis: the decay in brain plasticity diminishes neophilia and raises neophobia to preserve culture's identity. The new generation attacks the current one with tides of its own new cool and the old resists with conservative trenches of realism. Over and over.
Its a stretch to say natural selection put decay in the brain for a good reason. Not every trait was the result of positive or negative selection. Traits can occur as side effects of another trait (of another trait etc etc) that was positive or negatively selected.
If a new, sub optimal trait does not negatively affect the specimens ability to reproduce then there is no reason to try and select against it. Such a circumstance would not imply the trait was positively selected for.
It's a major fallacy to assume that evolution is somehow perfect. You might be right, but there could be hundreds of potential causes for the reduction in plasticity which do not actually involve protecting you from impairment.
As for your hypothesis, I think acceptance of norms and political beliefs is a process independent of neuroplasticity, which usually involves acquiring specific skills and talents; I might be wrong, but I think even a very "neuroplastic" elderly person may still have great difficulty changing political or cultural views.
Natural selection favors _survival_, not _well being_, for example many of us will die of aging but is also arguably one of worst ways to die. So maybe the lack of plasticity is just another form of progressive decay.