Sunday 21 November 2010

THE SOCIAL NETWORK, Asperger's, and Your Brain by Norman Holland

Is Asperger's contagious? Can an Asperger's victim change your brain?

The Social Network movie

The Social Network movie poster

I finally got round to seeing THE SOCIAL NETWORK. As everybody on the planet must know by now, it tells the story of Mark Zuckerberg, brilliant Harvard undergraduate, who created Facebook. As played by Jesse Eisenberg, he is socially inept, and, as a result, when Facebook makes him millions, he is sued by various friends and classmates who claim he stole their idea or whom he has allegedly defrauded. The picture tells much of its story through supposed depositions in that case. In the end, Zuckerberg settles the case, giving untold millions away to the plaintiffs. Even so he becomes the world's youngest billionaire.

The thematic point of the movie is the interesting games it plays with the idea of social relations--friendship, love. The movie begins when Zuckerberg's girlfriend Erica (Rooney Mara) dumps him. She tells him girls will dislike him, not for being a nerd, but for being an asshole. And Zuckerberg, as portrayed in the movie, surely qualifies. (Whether the portrayal and the whole story are accurate is another matter. See the message boards on this movie at IMDb.com http://tinyurl.com/242zyll.)

The movie contrasts real social networks, friends, lovers, actual sexual relationships, Zuckerberg's relation with Erica, with the half a billion people who are "friends" on Facebook. Disclosure: I'm one of them (http://tinyurl.com/fom7b).

Throughout the movie, the relationships among the people developing Facebook take on the same ephemeral or weird quality as the relationships online. People say wrong or mean things. Zuckerberg, as portrayed in the movie, is a motormouth with a gift for--more, a delight in-- saying the wrong, antagonizing, contemptuous thing. But he is also presented as a brilliant computer nerd with 1600 SAT scores.

It seemed to me perfectly clear when I saw the movie that Zuckerberg, again, as portrayed, was a classic case of Asperger's. I was planning to post a blog on it, but while I was fooling around with Halloween pranks, the web site Autisable made the same diagnosis. http://tinyurl.com/36y5d9x. And maybe there are others out there.

The point is, our brains have an immense computational capacity, but it is, finally, finite. We have only so much brain power. Savants, my neurologist friends tell me, are people in whom one part of the brain is hugely developed and other parts become less. And the Zuckerberg of the movie looks like a savant to me.

A savant or "high-functioning patient with autistic spectrum disorder" may have incredible gifts in music, the visual arts, mathematical calculation, or memory but be totally lacking in perception of the emotions of those around him. (See that wonderful novel, Mark Haddon's The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time.) The Zuckerberg of the movie, I think, is just such a case.

Mark Zuckerberg

Mark Zuckerberg

And is not the movie suggesting that our whole society, our "social network," is getting to be the same way? We have hundreds or even millions of "friends" on Facebook, but they are people whom we don't really know or have an authentic, tangible relationship with. Our iPads and iPhones and Blackberrys and all the other technological delights give us contacts with thousands of people. Thousands "hit" on this blog, for example, but with whom of you out there, do I have a real relationship? And could I tolerate real relationships with thousands of people?

And how is this affecting my brain? One part of our minds or brains is hugely developed, at least the prefrontal cortex, while another, the many systems for our relationships with others, is stunted. I spend most of my days on the computer. Are my systems for real social interaction atrophying? We get reports all the time of children who resort to bullying because they have no social skills because they have been spending all their time online. (Look at this picture of the real Mark Zuckerberg.) When I was a teenager, the long telephone call was my lifeline to my pals. But now it's Twitter and the momentary. Doesn't that change relationships? I think it does.

Can this Asperger's victim, if so he be, change your brain and mine? Is Asperger's contagious?

Five reasons why 500 million people are on facebook: What lessons for Psychology by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Ph.D. ogy?

What psychologists should learn from Facebook

1) Because too many people are bored at work: If managers assessed employees for what they actually do, as opposed to the time they spend at work, they would not have to worry about them spending too much time on Facebook, let alone banning Facebook at work. Unfortunately, most people hate their jobs and are only "doing the hours" - they only care about their pay and have no career; they are badly managed and not well-utilised. It is therefore susprising that Facebook doesn't have more than 500 million users - most of the remaining people in the world hate their jobs, too (and, especially, they hate their bosses).

2) Because too many people are unhappy about their love life: Some are single, others have made the wrong choice (or, at least, one that doesn't eliminate their desire to date other people). Facebook is not only an effective time-wasting device at work, it is also a hidden dating site. Indeed (if we believe The Social Network) it was created to make-up for someone's romantic failures, and its membership grew exponentially when "relationship status" was added as a key profile feature. Only Facebook may know - if not, they will work it out soon - just how many people have managed to get in touch with their school sweethearts, and there's no better place for finding anyone anywhere in the world. If the internet transforms reality into information, Facebook is a huge digital meat market.

3) Because there are too many narcissists (and even more voyeurs) in this world: Psychologists have only recently come to realise that there are many psychopaths in the normal population. But Facebook confirms that there are even more narcissistic, exhibitionistic people - why else would someone collect 1,000 "friends" and display 500 pictures of himself? This digitial showcase works well even for shy, introverted people (who would usually fail at attracting most people's attention in the world of real things). The reason why introverts can do this is that there are even more people willing to spend hours looking at stranger's pictures and profiles: "Look, Pauline has only slept 5 hours (amazing!)".

4) Because one of the main human motives is the desire to "get along": And because of that, we can only predict that there will be many more Facebook users in the near future. The desire to connect with others clearly surpasses the limits of physical interaction. In Japan and Korea people are updating their Facebook profiles and contacting other users even while having dinner or socialising with their "analogue" peers. There are already clinics dedicated exclusively to treating Facebook-addicts (people who stopped going to school, college or work, and even stopped sleeping, just in order to spend more time on Facebook).

5) Because the other main motive is to "get ahead": And this is the very reason why Facebook exists. Its founder seemed unable to get along, so he decided to get ahead instead. Many entrepreneurs have similar characteristics: they are psychopathic and anti-social, but hugely ambitious. Mark Zuckerberg couldn't get a date and barely had friends. So he decided to transform himself from techno-geek to mega-tycoon. He may not have increased his social skills, and still be a techno-geek, but his billions have probably helped him make some friends (not that he really cares about this anymore). The crucial lesson is that in achieving his personal goals, he also helped many others (500 million, but keep counting) satisfy their desire to "get ahead". People use Facebook to compete with each other: who's got more friends, and a more exciting life? This is the ultimate popularity contest.

Do you have what it takes to be the next Mark Zuckerberg? Find out here!

Wednesday 1 September 2010

How You Are Who You Are--in Chaos Theory by Norman Holland

How You Are Who You Are--in Chaos Theory

Chaos theory can picture how you are who you are

We have characteristic styles in which we do specific behaviors like walking, speaking, writing, loving, hating, and all the rest.

We can trace in those styles for individual behaviors a consistency that represents a style of styles or a style of being. I call this a person's identity.

Following the work of Grigsby and associates, I suggested that this identity or style of being is learned and then embodied in the brain as procedural memories.

Understanding a person's identity as procedural memories explains why personal styles persist even into dementia, why they are slowly acquired and slowly changed, if at all (as in psychotherapy), and why we ourselves can't easily put them into words.

In this last blog on "How You Are Who You Are," I suggest a way of thinking mathematically about such a style of being, a style of styles, or, simply, an identity.
Hills and valleys in your brain

Hills and valleys in your brain



As long ago as the 1980s, people had begun to see the flaws in pharmacological approaches to mental disorders. They were based on a linear model of mental illness. That model says that something goes wrong somewhere in the linear sequence from gene to receptor to dysfunction.

Instead, as more recent work shows, we need to recognize that the brain is a chaotic system. Reality is continuously changing, and its changes perturb our mental functioning which is also continuously changing. A small perturbation of our brains produces waves and waves of neuronal response. The initial conditions of the neurons that we bring to any given change in reality will be varying wildly. Small changes in reality can result in very large changes in our experience, because our reaction depends on the initial conditions our brains bring to those changes in reality, and those initial conditions are constantly changing.

Behaviorally, we are here or there, happy or unhappy, worried or secure, alert or soporific, and so on. Each of us responds differently even to medications, to say nothing of novels, movies, politicians, or any of the myriad things that our culture and environment bring us. Our brains respond differently because they not only differ from person to person but their states vary from moment to moment.

Grigsby and Stevens propose chaos theory for mathematicizing our characteristic defenses (and I would extend the idea to identity, the pervasive quality in all an individual's particular behaviors). (Grigsby and his colleagues were the first to suggest this idea publicly, but my colleague Murray Schwartz and I had speculated along these lines before we knew of Grigsby's work.)

According to chaos theory, one can describe a chaotic system (like the weather or our everyday behaviors) as a myriad of energy states, some requiring high energy, some low. If you graph these on a plane, they appear as a surface with high points, hills, and low points, valleys between the hills. The system will tend to gravitate to the valleys. Hence they are called "attractors" and sometimes "strange attractors." (That doesn't mean the people are strange, just the attractors.)

Brain as states

The brain as states

We can think of our character, including our defenses, as a configuration of such attractors. That is, we will tend to respond to the ever-changing and random demands of reality (chaos) in ways that involve the least expenditure of energy. Our mental state will roll down, as it were, into the valleys. We will, therefore, tend to repeat the valley patterns of behavior.

Notice that this theory has much in common with Freud's concept of a repetition compulsion (Grigsby and Stevens 2000, 317). Basically, if a solution to a problem from reality worked before (and even if it didn't), try that solution first. That uses the least brain energy.

We can think through, then, how you are who you are in two ways. One, how you are who you are consists of a series of procedural memories widely distributed in your brain. Together they constitute the style of your various styles, the style of your being, your pervasive identity. Two , we can imagine your style of being mathematically, as a configuration of strange attractors in a three-dimensional graph of your mental states. How you are who you are equals the way your momentary mental states will gravitate to the valleys in the configuration of mental states by which a mathematician would represent--quite simply--you.

Items I've referred to:

Freud, Sigmund, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, (1920g). Std. Edn. 8: 7-64.

Grigsby, Jim, and David Stevens, Neurodynamics of Personality (New York, 2000).

A test for suicide? by Elana Premack Sandler, L.C.S.W., M.P.H.

Should there be a "magic bullet" for suicide prevention?

This summer, a team of Harvard University psychologists released two tests that could change how mental health clinicians determine suicide risk.

These tests are objective measures that demonstrate an association between certain ways of thinking and a greater likelihood of suicidal behavior.

One test, which looks at how people pay attention to individual words, found that people who later attempted suicide paid more attention to words related to suicide. The second test, which measures unconscious associations between words, found that suicidal people made stronger associations between words related to "self" and words related either to "life" or "death/suicide." (You can read more about these tests and the related published studies here.)

I found out about these tests from my colleague, who raised a number of good questions that I'd like to reflect here.

1) Should there be, a "magic bullet" for suicide prevention?

A "suicide test" challenges conventional wisdom around suicide prevention in clinical settings. Traditionally, practitioners have struggled with how to ask about suicide and how to gauge what answers really indicate acute risk. A test that objectively predicted suicide risk would be quite a relief. But, that raises another question:

2) How might these tests take away the human dimension of a clinical assessment?

Even as I wrote out that question, I thought, "Well, the point of a clinical assessment is that there is some objectivity, and as humans we're rarely objective." So maybe the point is to take away the subjectivity, to make it clear - this person is suicidal, and this person is not. But, people aren't really that simple, are we?

3) Wouldn't it be equally useful to, in my colleague's words, research the helpful dialogues that get patients to tell practitioners that they have suicidal thoughts?

Yes, please. My colleague is a natural skeptic, so she really wants to put these tests to the test. Being the nerd I am, I'm excited to think that there could be a scientifically proven way to help more people that might be easier than asking really hard questions. At the same time, I wouldn't want to de-emphasize the value of the relationship between a clinician and a patient. Ideally, suicide assessment would involve a combination of an objective measure and a relationship-based conversation.

Obviously, and as usual, more questions than answers. What do you think?

Wednesday 4 August 2010

Four Ways to Respond During An Argument by Marsha Lucas, Ph.D.

First, we've typically thought that our nervous system helps to regulate our reactions to the world has been within two branches. The autonomic nervous system are where these two branches hang out. One of them works like an "accelerator" (the sympathetic branch), and tho other, the "brakes" (the parasympathetic branch). The long-held view is that that these two branches need to be in balance, to work in smooth alternating fashion, depending on the situation. Basically, in this line of thinking, our body's challenge was to balance between vroom! and stop.

That's true as far as it goes -- but wait! There's more! Let's take a look at another, newer theory, from Stephen Porges, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois, about our reactions to the stress of life -- and the stress of love. It's a very helpful way to think about rewiring your body's self-regulation, and help you have better, healthier relationships.

Porges takes the notion of "balance" between the brakes and the accelerator in a slightly different direction, one which is vastly more useful as we think about love, attachment, and relationships. His polyvagal theory suggests that there are three circuits (not just two branches), which drive one of three possible responses, depending on how we sense the relative safety, danger, or threat to life in our bodies. This is important: These sensations happen in the body and are first dealt with in the lower, non-thinking, unconscious brain -- not the thinking brain (the better to stay alive -- higher-level thinking slows you down, and you end up being someone's lunch).

From your heart, stomach, and gut, the sensations zoom up your spinal cord and enter the lowest part of your brain (the brainstem), where they are immediately assessed by that fidgety alarm button, your amygdala, and other deep-in-the-brain limbic players, including your insula -- all well below your conscious awareness, before you can even think about it. (In fact, some recent research has shown that your limbic brain responds to what your eyes see even before the visual part of your brain knows you've seen something.) Your limbic brain is what I like to call The Determinator. The Determinator makes one of three calls in the face of your body's signals of potential danger:
  • If the Determinator judges the incoming information as life-threatening danger, one of the three parts of the circuit (the dorsal vagus, which runs between the stomach and the brainstem) leaps into action, and the body immobilizes - shuts or slows way down, basically "playing dead" to protect itself.
  • If the Determinator determines that there is danger that isn't life-threatening, a different part of the circuit (our old friend the sympathetic branch, a.k.a. "the accelerator") gets the body into mobilization in response to the threat - the all-too-familiar "fight-or-flight" response - which is also a way that the body tries to protect itself.
  • Finally - here's the really cool part - if the Determinator's assessment is that the incoming information indicates that things are safe, a third part of the circuit (the ventral vagus) essentially "turns off" the fight-flight response, and social engagement can happen - a calm state that supports being connected with others. Being in this state allows for better health, growth, and communication. This could be thought of as a third, more "advanced" method of self-preservation, and it would make sense that this would be hard-wired into our bodies just like the first two, if only for survival and evolutionary purposes.

That third part of the circuit, the ventral vagus, is a well-insulated, fast-running nerve that runs between the brainstem and the heart. Not only does it calm down the heart and lungs, but it also has a role to play in perceiving the sound of other people's voices and their facial expressions. It activates when we perceive (again, at a level below our awareness) a softening of the facial muscles in others, and a relaxation in their tone of voice -- in other words, when when our body senses that it's safe to be connected. When the ventral vagus is "on", we have a greater capacity to really listen, in a tuned-in way, to others.

So what you want to be able to create in your body and your brain for better relationships is a sense of greater safety -- that way, fight, flight, or playing dead aren't your only choices when things get stressful between you and your significant other.

  • In your brain: When your limbic brain -- the Determinator -- isn't acting like a lone vigilante sounding the alarm at every turn, your ventral vagus can be in action more often. As a result, you're more frequently able to recognize (and even create) a zone of safety and comfort, and be primed to engage in connection and attachment.
  • In your body: When your body's regulation of it's basic state of affairs - heart rate, breathing, stress-hormone levels, and so on - allows you to feel safer more of the time, you can be active and alert, in balance with feelings of calmness and receptivity, and better at social engagement - that is, being in relationship.

You can see that this can work in sort of self-perpetuating loops: In Loop A, your body perceives safety, and your ventral vagus does it's warm-and-fuzzy thing. Your face softens, your voice is more relaxed, and the person you're with perceives safety, too -- so his face softens, his voice relaxes. Good to go.

If, instead, Loop B is in play, you move through the world with an overall sense that there's a lack of safety, your body and brain are torqued to be hyper-sensitive to threat, your ventral vagus never gets to come out and play. And since you're far less likely to perceive safety, your face is tight, your muscles are tense, your voice is edgy, and you're going to have a much harder time promoting a sense of safety in the person you're sitting with. They respond (as you can -- and do -- imagine) with matching guardedness and discomfort. Good times? Not.

So, being able to get unhooked from the moment in the argument, to remember who you are (not a gazelle being chased by a lion, for example, nor a wounded rabid dog who's been cornered). Take a breath. Feel some compassion for yourself, smiling inwardly. Take another breath, and with compassion for the scared person standing across from you, smile outwardly.

There's much more to say about this whole thing of smiling in the face of danger -- I'm not advocating being a bliss-ninny when your boss is about to trounce you. I'll be writing more about this -- although it'll probably take me more than the concise 140 characters from the Dalai Lama. :)

Marsha Lucas, PhD is a psychologist / neuropsychologist in Washington, DC. Learn more about rewiring your brain at ReWireYourBrainForLove.com, where she offers a free mindfulness meditation download and a monthly e-newsletter with meditation tips. You can also follow @DrMarsha on Twitter, and join her on her Facebook page.

How You Are Who You Are--Styles by Norman N. Holland, Ph.D

We have all these various styles for various activities, yet they have in common that they are our style, not somebody else's. We each have a style of styles. If we could put it into words, we could phrase the very style of our being.

That is what a psychotherapist does or part of it. The way we say things, our style of speaking and writing, consists of many, many choices. Our language provides the best evidence for a pervasive personal style. An analyst understands us through the way we say the things we say. The analyst listens for how we say what we say. The analyst listens with the third ear.

Psychoanalysis and psychotherapy build on that sense of a person's character or identity that will pervade everything he or she says in the session. Indeed, it will pervade everything the patient does in life. One important aim of therapy is to bring that style to consciousness and thus to conscious control.

So far as non-psychotherapists are concerned, we have to know how our fellow humans are going to behave--their style. Imagine yourself in the paleolithic hunter-gatherer band so beloved of evlutionary psychologists. You need to know your 150 or so companions. You need to be able to predict how this or that person will act in the different situations of life on the savanna. You need that knowledge to survive and to spread your genes. You need to know who is likely to do what in response to something that you do. And the same holds true for you yourself. Others need to know how you'll behave, even or especially in our complicated societies where hundreds of Facebook "friends" substitute for the 150-person hunter-gatherer band. The whole band needs to know that Bart Simpson will do one impish thing after another or that Lady Gaga will do more and more outrageously sexy things. Life needs to be, to that extent, predictable. Otherwise chaos.

And people do know you, just as you know about them. They know, even if you don't, how you are who you are. They can pick up your identity-from-outside, as opposed to your own sense of self. Your inner sense of yourself is something only you can feel and think from inside, and it varies widely from moment to moment. Your interior sense of yourself may or may not coincide with others' knowledge from outside of how you are likely to behave.

In brain terms, that interior sense of self seems to be connected to the so-called "default network." This is a set of midline structures that light up in the MRI scanner when you are not being asked to perform some task. These midline structures quiet down when you are asked to do something. Some link these sites to "mind-wandering." Some call them the "task-negative network." Neurologists detect it as very slow but coherent oscillations (less than one every ten seconds) among groups of neurons associated with memory, theory of mind, and integration of behavioral plans.

But that default network and/or interior sense of self is altogether different from somebody else's sense of how you act. When others recognize your posture, your walk, your handwriting, or your way of saying hello on the telephone, they are recognizing your particular, individual style as seen from outside.

Separate styles inform many, many different kinds of activities, writing, walking, talking, interpreting, greeting--you name it. Must not, then, their neurological embodiments be widely scattered in the brain?

I think they are, as I will explain in my continuation blog on this subject.

What Does Music Look Like to Our Brain?

It is natural to assume that the visual information streaming into our eyes determines the visual perceptions we end up with, and that the auditory information entering our ears determines the events we hear.

But the brain is more complicated than this. Visual and auditory information interact in the brain, and the brain utilizes both to guess the single scene to render a perception of. For example, the research of Ladan Shams, Yukiyasu Kamitani and Shinsuke Shimojo at Caltech have shown that we perceive a single flash as a double flash if it is paired with a double beep. And Robert Sekuler and others from Brandeis University have shown that if a sound occurs at the time when two balls pass through each other on screen, the balls are instead perceived to have collided and reversed direction.

These and other results of this kind demonstrate the interconnectedness of visual and auditory information in our brain. Visual ambiguity can be reduced with auditory information, and vice versa. And, generally, both are brought to bear in the brain's attempt to infer the best guess about what's out there.

Your brain does not, then, consist of independent visual and auditory systems, with separate troves of visual and auditory "knowledge" about the world. Instead, vision and audition talk to one another, and there are regions of cortex responsible for making vision and audition fit one another.

These regions know about the sounds of looks and the looks of sounds.

Because of this, when your brain hears something but cannot see it, your brain does not just sit by and refrain from guessing what it might have looked like.

When your auditory system makes sense of something, it will have a tendency to activate visual areas, eliciting imagery of its best guess as to the appearance of the stuff making the sound.

For example, the sound of your neighbor's rustling tree may spring to mind an image of its swaying lanky branches. The whine of your cat heard far way may evoke an image of it stuck up high in that tree. And the pumping of your neighbor's kid's BB gun can bring forth an image of the gun being pointed at Foofy way up there.

Your visual system has, then, strong opinions about the proper look of the things it hears.

And, bringing ourselves back to music, we can use the visual system's strong opinions as a means for gauging music's meaning.

In particular, we can ask your visual system what it thinks the appropriate visual is for music.

If, for example, the visual system responds to music with images of beating hearts, then it would suggest, to my disbelief, that music mimics the sounds of heartbeats. If, instead, the visual system responds with images of pornography, then it would suggest that music sounds like sex. You get the idea.

But in order to get the visual system to act like an oracle, we need to get it to speak. How are we to know what the visual system thinks music looks like?

One approach is to simply ask which visuals are, in fact, associated with music? For example, when people create imagery of musical notes, what does it look like? One cheap way to look into this is simply to do a Google (or any search engine) image search on the term "musical notes." You might think such a search would merely return images of simple notes on the page.

However, that is not what one finds. To my surprise, actually, most of the images are like the one in the nearby figure, with notes drawn in such a way that they appear to be moving through space.

Notes in musical notation never actually look anything like this, and real musical notes have no look at all (because they are sounds). And yet we humans seem to be prone to visually depicting notes as moving all about.

music, movement, notes

Music tends to be depicted as moving.

Could these images of notes in motion be due to a more mundane association?

Music is played by people, and people have to move in order to play their instrument. Could this be the source of the movement-music association? I don't think so, because the movement suggested in these images of notes doesn't look like an instrument being played. In fact, it is common to show images of an instrument with the notes beginning their movement through space from the instrument: these notes are on their way somewhere, not an indication of the musician's key-pressing or back-and-forth movements.

Could it be that the musical notes are depicted as moving through space because sound waves move through space? The difficulty with this hypothesis is that all sound moves through space. All sound would, if this were the case, be visually rendered as moving through space, but that's not the case. For example, speech is not usually visually rendered as moving through space. Another difficulty is that the musical notes are usually meandering in these images, but sound waves are not meandering -- sound waves go straight. A third problem with sound waves underlying the visual metaphor is that we never see sound waves in the first place.

Another possible counter-hypothesis is that the depiction of visual movement in the images of musical notes is because all auditory stimuli are caused by underlying events with movement of some kind. The first difficulty, as was the case for sound waves, is that it is not the case that all sound is visually rendered in motion. The second difficulty is that, while it is true that sounds typically require movement of some kind, it need not be movement of the entire object through space. Moving parts within the object may make the noise, without the object going anywhere. In fact, the three examples I gave earlier -- leaves rustling, Foofy whining, and the BB gun pumping -- are noises without any bulk movement of the object (the tree, Foofy, and the BB gun, respectively). The musical notes in imagery, on the other hand, really do seem to be moving, in bulk, across space.

Music is like tree-rustling, Foofy, BB guns and human speech in that it is not made via bulk movement through space. And yet music appears to be unique in this tendency to be visually depicted as moving through space.

In addition, not only are musical notes rendered as in motion, musical notes tend to be depected as meandering.

When visually rendered, music looks alive and in motion (often along the ground), just what one might expect if music's secret is that it sounds like people moving.

A Google Image search on "musical notes" is one means by which one may attempt to discern what the visual system thinks music looks like, but another is to simply ask ourselves what is the most common visual display shown during music. That is, if people were to put videos to music, what would the videos tend to look like?

Lucky for us, people do put videos to music! They're called music videos, of course. And what do they look like?

The answer is so obvious that it hardly seems worth noting: music videos tend to show people moving about, usually in a time-locked fashion to the music, very often dancing.

As obvious as it is that music videos typically show people moving, we must remember to ask ourselves why music isn't typically visually associated with something very different. Why aren't music videos mostly of rivers, avalanches, car races, wind-blown grass, lion hunts, fire, or bouncing balls?


These strong opinions about what music looks like make perfect sense if music mimics human movement sounds. In real life, when people carry out complex behaviors, their visual movements are tightly choreographed with the sounds - because the sight and sound are due to the same event. When you hear movement, you expect to see that same movement. Music sounds to your brain like human movement, which is why when your brain hears music, it expects that any visual of it should be consistent with it.

===

This was adapted from Harnessed: How Language and Music Mimicked Nature and Transformed Ape to Man (Benbella Books, 2011).

Mark Changizi is Professor of Human Cognition at 2ai, and author of The Vision Revolution.