neuroscience cool, and a note on brain imaging

check out the new trend in trend spotting. i can’t write it any better than wired did. the questions they ask at the end are most interesting - what does it mean to be cool? why do we like cool things? food and drugs have their own physical reward, but what makes that beat-up thrift store shirt rewarding? and another neat thought – those really “in the know” aren’t those who can identify cool things best – they can identify uncool things best. it ends, however, with an important cautionary note on ad hoc science. fantastic article.
i’ll add my own cautionary note. i must insert my typical skepticism about brain imaging. there are still serious flaws with the technology and even the theory behind its use that make me quite hesitant to accept many arguments based solely on scan results. however, the scientific community has seemed to forget all their hesitations and are plowing forward full-force. it’s just so exciting to see a brain area “lit up.” it’s so clear, so unquestionable. certainly some of the results are interesting, but i just wish folks were more cautious. i’m not going to go so far as to call brain imaging “the new phrenology,” but nonetheless while reading these reports it’s important to keep in mind their inherent flaws and take the results with not a grain, but perhaps a large chunk, of salt.

Labels: neuroscience