January 10, 2018

Understanding science

Why we’re not wired to think scientifically (and what can be done about it)

What is it about being human that conflicts with being scientific?

Read Time 8 minutes

Author’s note: This post was originally published in May, 2014. It has been updated to reflect my current thinking on the topic. Perhaps the best addition, by popular demand, is Rik’s coffee recipe (click the 1st inline footnote).

§

In 2012, I was having dinner with a good friend, Rik Ganju, who is one of the smartest people I know. And one of the most talented, too—a brilliant engineer, a savant-like jazz musician, a comedic writer, and he makes the best coffee I’ve ever had.1Here is the coffee recipe, courtesy Rik. I make this often and the typical response is, “Why are you not making this for a living?” Look for Vietnamese cinnamon, also known as Saigon cinnamon; you need two big dashes, if that. You need real vanilla (be careful to avoid the cheap versions with added sugar). Best is dissolved in ethanol; if that doesn’t work for you get the dried stick and scrape the pods. Then find a spice store and get chicory root (I’m a bit lazy and get mine on Amazon). You’ll want to replace coffee beans with ~10% chicory on a dry weight basis. If you’re on a budget, cut your coffee with Trader Joe’s organic Bolivian. But do use at least 50% of your favorite coffee by dry weight: 50-40-10 (50% your favorite, 40% TJ Bolivian, 10% other ingredients [chicory root, cinnamon, vanilla, amaretto for an evening coffee]) would be a good mix to start. Let it sit in a French press for 6 minutes then drink straight or with cream, but very little–max is 1 tablespoon of cream. The Rik original was done with “Ether” from Philz as the base. I was whining to him about my frustration with what I perceived to be a lack of scientific literacy among people from whom I “expected more.” Why was it, I asked, that a reporter at a top-flight newspaper couldn’t understand the limitations of a study he was reporting on? Are they trying to deliberately mislead people, or do they really think this study which showed an association between such-and-such, somehow implies X?

Rik just looked at me, kind of smiled, and asked the question in another way. “Peter, give me one good reason why scientific process, rigorous logic, and rational thought should be innate to our species?” I didn’t have an answer. So as I proceeded to eat my curry, Rik expanded on this idea. He offered two theses. One, the human brain is oriented to pleasure ahead of logic and reason; two, the human brain is oriented to imitation ahead of logic and reason. What follows is my attempt to reiterate the ideas we discussed that night, focusing on the second of Rik’s postulates—namely, that our brains are oriented to imitate rather than to reason from first principles or think scientifically.

One point before jumping in: This post is not meant to be disparaging to those who don’t think scientifically. Rather, it’s meant to offer a plausible explanation. If for no other reason, it’s a way for me to capture an important lesson I need to remember in my own journey of life. I’m positive some will find a way to be offended by this, which is rarely my intention in writing, but nevertheless I think there is something to learn in telling this story.

The evolution of thinking

Two billion years ago, we were just cells acquiring a nucleus. A good first step, I suppose. Two million years ago, we left the trees for caves. Two hundred thousand years ago we became modern man. No one can say exactly when language arrived, because its arrival left no artifacts, but the best available science suggests it showed up about 50,000 years ago.

I wanted to plot the major milestones, below, on a graph. But even using a log scale, it’s almost unreadable. The information is easier to see in this table:

Formal logic arrived with Aristotle 2,500 years ago; the scientific method was pioneered by Francis Bacon 400 years ago. Shortly following the codification of the scientific method—which defined exactly what “good” science meant—the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge was formed. So, not only did we know what “good” science was, but we had an organization that expanded the application, including peer review, and existed to continually ask the question, “Is this good science?”

While the Old Testament makes references to the earliest clinical trial—observing what happened to those who did or did not partake of the “King’s meat”—the process was codified further by 1025 AD in The Canon of Medicine, and formalized in the 18th century by James Lind, the Scottish physician who discovered, using randomization between groups, the curative properties of oranges and lemons—vitamin C, actually—in treating sailors with scurvy. Hence the expression, “Limey.”

The concept of statistical significance is barely 100 years old, thanks to Ronald Fisher, the British statistician who popularized the use of the p-value and proposed the limits of chance versus significance.

The art of imitation

Consider that for 2 million years we have been evolving—making decisions, surviving, and interacting—but for only the last 2,500 years (0.125% of that time) have we had “access” to formal logic, and for only 400 years (0.02% of that time) have we had “access” to scientific reason and understanding of scientific methodologies.

Whatever a person was doing before modern science—however clever it may have been—it wasn’t actually science. And along the same vein, how many people were practicing logical thinking before logic itself was invented? Perhaps some were doing so prior to Aristotle, but certainly it was rare compared to the time following its codification.

Options for problem-solving are limited to the tools available. The arrival of logic was a major tool. So, too, was the arrival of the scientific method, clinical trials, and statistical analyses. Yet for the first 99.98% of our existence on this planet as humans—literally—we had to rely on other options—other tools, if you will — for solving problems and making decisions.

So what were they?

We can make educated guesses. If it’s 3,000 BC and your tribemate Ugg never gets sick, all you can do to try to not get sick is hang out where he hangs out, wear similar colors, drink from the same well—replicate his every move. You are not going to figure out anything from first principles because that isn’t an option, any more than traveling by jet across the Pacific Ocean was an option. Nothing is an option until it has been invented.

So we’ve had millions of years to evolve and refine the practice of:

Step 1: Identify a positive trait (e.g., access to food, access to mates),

Step 2: Mimic the behaviors of those possessing the trait(s),

Step 3: Repeat.

Yet, we’ve only had a minute fraction of that time to learn how to apply formal logic and scientific reason to our decision making and problem solving. In other words, evolution has hardwired us to be followers, copycats if you will, so we must go very far out of our way to unlearn those inborn (and highly refined) instincts to think logically and scientifically.

Recently, neuroscientists (thanks to the advent of functional MRI, or fMRI) have been asking questions about the impact of independent thinking (something I think we would all agree is “healthy”) on brain activity. I think this body of research is still in its infancy, but the results are suggestive, if not somewhat provocative.

To quote the authors of this work, “if social conformity resulted from conscious decision-making, this would be associated with functional changes in prefrontal cortex, whereas if social conformity was more perceptually based, then activity changes would be seen in occipital and parietal regions.” Their study suggested that non-conformity produced an associated “pain of independence.” In the study-subjects the amygdala became most active in times of non-conformity, suggesting that non-conformity—doing exactly what we didn’t evolve to do—produced emotional distress.

From an evolutionary perspective, of course, this makes sense. I don’t know enough neuroscience to agree with their suggestion that this phenomenon should be titled the “pain of independence,” but the “emotional discomfort” from being different—i.e., not following or conforming—seems to be evolutionarily embedded in our brains.

Good solid thinking is really hard to do as you no doubt realize. How much easier is it to economize on all this and just “copy & paste” what seemingly successful people are doing? Furthermore, we may be wired to experience emotional distress when we don’t copy our neighbor! And while there may have been only 2 or 3 Ugg’s in our tribe 5,000 years ago, as our societies evolved, so too did the number of potential Ugg’s (those worth mimicking). This would be great (more potential good examples to mirror), if we were naturally good at thinking logically and scientifically, but we’ve already established that’s not the case. Amplifying this problem even further, the explosion of mass media has made it virtually, if not entirely, impossible to identify those truly worth mimicking versus those who are charlatans, or simply lucky. Maybe it’s not so surprising the one group of people we’d all hope could think critically—politicians—seems to be as useless at it as the rest of us.

So we have two problems:

  1. We are not genetically equipped to think logically or scientifically; such thinking is a very recent tool of our species that must be learned and, with great effort, “overwritten.” Furthermore, it’s likely that we are programmed to identify and replicate the behavior of others, rather than think independently, and independent thought may actually cause emotional distress.
  2. The signal (truly valuable behaviors worth mimicking)-to-noise (all unworthy behaviors) ratio is so low—virtually zero—today that the folks who have not been able to “overwrite” their genetic tendency for problem-solving are doomed to confusion and likely poor decision making.

As I alluded to at the outset of this post, I find myself getting frustrated, often, at the lack of scientific literacy and independent, critical thought in the media and in the public arena more broadly. But, is this any different than being upset that Monarch butterflies are black and orange rather than yellow and red? Marcus Aurelius reminds us that you must not be surprised by buffoonery from buffoons, “You might as well resent a fig tree for secreting juice.”

While I’m not at all suggesting people unable to think scientifically or logically are buffoons, I am suggesting that expecting this kind of thinking as the default behavior from people is tantamount to expecting rhinoceroses not to charge or dogs not to bark—sure it can be taught with great patience and pain, but it won’t be easy in short time.

Furthermore, I am not suggesting that anyone who disagrees with my views or my interpretations of data frustrates me. I have countless interactions with folks whom I respect greatly but who interpret data differently from me. This is not the point I am making, and these are not the experiences that frustrate me. Healthy debate is a wonderful contributor to scientific advancement. Blogging probably isn’t. My point is that critical thought, logical analysis, and an understanding of the scientific method are completely foreign to us, and if we want to possess these skills, it requires deliberate action and time.

What can we do about it?

I’ve suggested that we aren’t wired to be good critical thinkers, and that this poses problems when it comes to our modern lives. The just-follow-your-peers-or-the-media-or-whatever-seems-to-work approach simply isn’t good enough anymore.

But is there a way to overcome this?

I don’t have a “global” (i.e., how to fix the world) solution for this problem, but the “local” (i.e., individual) solution is quite simple provided one feature is in place: a desire to learn. I consider myself scientifically literate. Sure, I may never become one-tenth a Richard Feynman, but I “get it” when it comes to understanding the scientific method, logic, and reason. Why? I certainly wasn’t born this way. Nor did medical school do a particularly great job of teaching it. I was, however, very lucky to be mentored by a brilliant scientist, Steve Rosenberg, both in medical school and during my post-doctoral fellowship. Whatever I have learned about thinking scientifically I learned from him initially, and eventually from many other influential thinkers. And I’m still learning, obviously. In other words, I was mentored in this way of thinking just as every other person I know who thinks this way was also mentored. One of my favorite questions when I’m talking with (good) scientists is to ask them who mentored them in their evolution of critical thinking.

Relevant aside: Take a few minutes to watch Feynman at his finest in this video—the entire video is remarkable, especially the point about “proof,”—but the first minute is priceless and a spot on explanation of how experimental science should work.

You may ask, is learning to think critically any different than learning to play an instrument? Learning a new language? Learning to be mindful? Learning a physical skill like tennis? I don’t think so. Sure, some folks may be predisposed to be better than others, even with equal training, but virtually anyone can get “good enough” at a skill if they want to put the effort in. The reason I can’t play golf is because I don’t want to, not because I lack some ability to learn it.

If you’re reading this, and you’re saying to yourself that you want to increase your mastery of critical thinking, I promise you this much—you can do it if you’re willing to do the following:

  1. Start reading (see starter list, below).
  2. Whenever confronted with a piece of media claiming to report on a scientific finding, read both the actual study and the media, in that order. See if you can spot the mistakes in reporting.
  3. Find other like-minded folks to discuss scientific studies. I’m sure you’re rolling your eyes at the idea of a “journal club,” but it doesn’t need to be that formal at all (though years of formal weekly journal clubs did teach me a lot). You just need a good group of peers who share your appetite for sharpening their critical thinking skills. In fact, we have a regularly occurring journal club on this site (starting in January, 2018).

I look forward to seeing the comments on this post, as I suspect many of you will have excellent suggestions for reading materials for those of us who want to get better in our critical thinking and reasoning. I’ll start the list with a few of my favorites, in no particular order:

  1. Anything by Richard Feynman (In college and med school, I would not date a girl unless she agreed to read “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman”)
  2. The Transformed Cell, by Steve Rosenberg
  3. Anything by Karl Popper
  4. Anything by Frederic Bastiat
  5. Bad Science, by Gary Taubes
  6. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn
  7. Risk, Chance, and Causation, by Michael Bracken
  8. Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson
  9. Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman
  10. The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses,” by T.C. Chamberlin

I’m looking forward to other recommendations.

Disclaimer: This blog is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute the practice of medicine, nursing or other professional health care services, including the giving of medical advice, and no doctor/patient relationship is formed. The use of information on this blog or materials linked from this blog is at the user's own risk. The content of this blog is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Users should not disregard, or delay in obtaining, medical advice for any medical condition they may have, and should seek the assistance of their health care professionals for any such conditions.

295 Comments

  1. Since we’re all not wired to think logically, allow me to point out a huge bias in your article:

    Eastern philosophies existed before Greek philosophy, yet Westerners always jump towards Plato and Socrates and others of their ilk.

    It’s even more disturbing that you’re writing about eating a curry whilst absolutely ignoring non-Western milestones in evolution beyond vague, “humans first acquired language”.

    I really like your work but if I start seeing more outdated anthropological approaches to explaining humanity (such as the caucasoid/mongoloid/negroid pseudo scientific classifications of humans), I will stop coming here.

    • That last paragraph is a classic straw man. Well done.

      To the point, let’s say that Eastern philosophy was successful in teaching people how to relax and handle what is, Western philosophy was successful in teaching people how to challenge who they are and what they know and become more than what they are. Eastern produced inner peace and stopped there, Western philosophy evolved to science and the scientific method. I’m Jewish, and I don’t mind Peter describing evolution that way without including Jewish philosophy that predates both Eastern and Western, because Jewish philosophy didn’t evolve into anything else either (or if you will, Jewish philosophy is about the person evolving themselves into something more than what they are, nevertheless not what he is talking about). Take his arguments on their merit, they don’t have to involve our personal lives.

    • There are differences between the races though…

      The easiest and most blatantly obvious is color. In reality it would be better if we could break it down even further to more specific groups of people. That way a doctor could put you into for example Caucasian Class C based on some type of test. People during the majority of our evolution experienced infrequent contact with other groups and logically would share many of the same genetic traits with people of the same group.

      A doctor could than recommend a diet/lifestyle that minimizes potential risks based on studies of people with the same genetic markers. Societies that first begun drinking milk can digest lactose is a good example where this would be handy.

  2. Very intriguing article and comments! I will definitely read it several more times. Perhaps it will entice me to stop and think the next time I experience “pain of independence,” perhaps the same phenomenon psychologists refer to as cognitive dissonance which is, indeed, an emotionally painful experience.

  3. For some thought-provoking and humorous graphical examples of coincidental “spurious correlations”, see https://www.tylervigen.com/ . (I am not affiliated with that website in any way.) There’s a nice 3-minute video at the bottom of the page, discussing correlation vs. causality.

  4. Splendid blog, thank you! But It’s left me with a nagging concern …

    I’m a 30-year insulin-dependent diabetic, 68 years old, with an HbA1c of 5% on Dr Bernstein’s lowcarb diet. My doc insisted that I statin my high LDL-P. I counter-insisted on an EBCT which showed my coronary artery calcium score is zero, same as it was 6 years ago by CAT scan. No calcium, no plaque, and since this is an enduring result, probably no fast-growing popcorn plaque either.

    If I’ve understood your cholesterol series correctly, LDL-P is a risk factor and whether it’s a cause or correlation has yet to be established. Why does my doc recommend a hazardous treatment for my risk factor without first testing for atherosclerosis? It’s grossly unscientific.

    Why do I, an extremely high-risk non-patient, have no plaque?

    You said early in the cholesterol series that little attention has been paid to fostering endothelial health. I’ve made every effort to foster my enothelial health. I take a gram of vitamin C every day – Linus Pauling pointed out that saturating the body with vitamin C completely cross-links collagen, leaving no open bonds to attach to and trap LDL beneath the endothelium – “Long-term ascorbic acid administration reverses endothelial vasomotor dysfunction in patients with coronary artery disease” Vita 1999. I take Epsom salts baths – “High magnesium intake is associated with lower concentrations of certain markers of systemic inflammation and endothelial dysfunction” Liu 2009. I take fish oil supplements: “Supplementation of omega-3 fatty acids significantly improves the endothelial function” Gu 2012. And so forth. Maybe, just maybe, post hoc ergo propter hoc –

    25% of Americans take in no detectable w-3 Dolecek 1991, Hampl 2004 found one in three Americans to be depleted of vitamin C, and “68% [of Americans] consumed less than the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of magnesium” Woolson 2005. So it’s plausible that the fellow traveler of Keys’s wanky cholesterol numbers are nutrient deficiencies which actually cause atherosclerosis. Lowcarb avoids empty calories and lowers insulin which could help – but what if the underlying defect is nutrient deficiencies?

    I urge you to make discovering the determinants of endothelial health a priority for NuSi – the alternative of optimizing risk factors is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as though Francis Bacon never lived.

    • Richard: Have you had your thyroid hormone tested? I put together the following document (text lifted entirely from other sources, both cited, one of which is Doc Bernstein) for my husband’s doctor. Hubby is a type-1 diabetic, diagnosed at age 4 (he’s now 51). He’s in great health, but just recently had his LDL-P tested for the first time. It was very high. All other blood markers are good. In the next round of blood tests, he will have thyroid tested.

      “Sometimes, months to years after a patient has experienced normal or near-normal blood sugars and improvements in the cardiac risk profile, we will see deterioration in the results of such tests as those for LDL, HDL, homocysteine, and fibrinogen. All too often, the patient or his physician will blame diet. Inevitably, however, we find upon further testing that his thyroid activity has declined. Hypothyroidism is an autoimmune disorder, like type 1 diabetes, and is frequently inherited by diabetics and their close relatives. It can appear years before or after the development of diabetes and is not caused by high blood sugars. In fact, hypothyroidism can cause a greater likelihood of abnormalities of the cardiac risk profile than can blood sugar elevation. The treatment of a low thyroid condition is oral replacement of the deficient hormone(s)—usually one pill daily. The best screening test is free T3, tested by tracer dialysis. If this is low, then a full thyroid risk profile should be performed. Correction of the thyroid deficiency inevitably? corrects the abnormalities of cardiac risk factors that it caused.”

      Source: Dr. Richard Bernstein’s website, article “Recent Developments Regarding Risk Factors for Heart Disease, Part 2”

      ==========================================

      “Poor thyroid function is another potential cause of elevated [LDL] particle number. Thyroid hormone has multiple effects on the regulation of lipid production, absorption, and metabolism. It stimulates the expression of HMG-CoA reductase, which is an enzyme in the liver involved in the production of cholesterol. (As a side note, one way that statins work is by inhibiting the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.) Thyroid hormone also increases the expression of LDL receptors on the surface of cells in the liver and in other tissues. In hypothyroidism, the number of receptors for LDL on cells will be decreased. This leads to reduced clearance of LDL from the blood and thus higher LDL levels. Hypothyroidism may also lead to higher cholesterol by acting on Niemann-Pick C1-like 1 protein, which plays a critical role in the intestinal absorption of cholesterol.
      “Studies show that LDL particle number is higher even in subclinical hypothyroidism (high TSH with normal T4 and T3), and that LDL particle number will decrease after treatment with thyroid hormone.”

      Source: Chris Kresser.com, “What Causes Elevated LDL Particle Number?”

    • I should add that “In most hypercholesterolemic persons with a low vitamin C status, the administration of ascorbic acid in doses 500-1000 mg per day lowers total cholesterol concentration” (Ginter 1982), and that low magnesium intake raises cholesterol in animal studies, and giving 395 mg of magnesium for six weeks “was apparently effective in reducing blood total cholesterol and LDL-C, and also in decreasing lipid peroxidation in [42 human] hypercholesterolemic subjects” (Fu 2012). It’s common knowledge that fish oil supplements reduce triglyceride levels but perhaps less well known that increasing sugar from 5% to 18% of calories for six weeks elevated cholesterol by 20% in men, and in the group fed 33% of their calories as sugar, cholesterol increased by 31% (Reiser 1980).

      Cholesterol responds to dietary improvement

  5. Wow Kelley that’s interesting!

    I’ve been hypothyroid since I got diabetes, I take 3 grains of Westhroid per day. This year’s test showed:
    TSH = 0.81
    T4, free = 1.2
    T3, free = 6.5 (H)

    But I’m not sure it’s been established that high LDL-P is a risk factor in low-carbers …

  6. Great blog!
    Just yesterday I was feeling a similar frustration about people not seeing the logical fallacies in their ‘beliefs’ even when I point them out and explain the fallacy. Straw man, argument to authority, and added hominem attacks are soo common.
    I also found it interesting how you learned logic and critical thinking – i was lucky I guess to be born with it, much to the chagrin of my devout catholic mother. 🙂
    Nice reading list. I too am a impressed with Feynman, especially his enthusiasm with educating people who will probably never understand the concept of a position being an electron traveling backwards in time.
    I’m also a fan of Malcolm Gladwell. Although Khaneman seems dismissive of Blink, it explained how we think in two ways well before he finished writing ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’

    • People often employ the classic fallacies as rhetorical flourishes(and have for like…. forever). If you consistently disregard or criticize peoples points because they use the vernacular they grew up with, you come off as nit nit-picky. Right or wrong If you encounter a skilled communicator in a competitively environment they can use that need to correct against you.

  7. Thanks, Peter!
    Just red “You Are Not So Smart” by David McRaney and started “You Are Now Less Dumb”. Good read about functioning of human mind.
    Interesting book is Robert O Becker “The Body Electric”. Besides descriptions of his research, Becker gives insight how mainstream science is shaped by personal intrigues, commercial and military interests.
    On a lighter note I’d suggest Terry Pratchett “The Truth”, very cool allegory on mass media.

  8. I haven’t taken the time to read all of the commentary, so this may have been posed already. Dr. Attia … I find quite a number of holes in your logic and reasoning. Your position is one of an elitist. Wow. You suggest that mankind didn’t discover how to think with logic and reason until the sciences of logic, reason (the Scientific Method) were established? Really? You believe that mankind evolved by mimicking? You’ve suggested that very few human organisms had the ability to directly adapt to the environment (by making cause and effect observations) and the rest of us have evolved by mimicking the chosen few. I suggest that evolution would have come to a screeching halt if that were the case. … OH! but it nearly has! The mimicking that your friend suggests that we are hardwired for is happening now. The majority have become hardwired for mimicking because of our current state of devolution. I’d suggest we (all) look at the role of the brain’s Pineal Gland. Could it be that this gland is the physical structure that every human has that serves the purpose of converging intuition with logical thinking and reasoning. I suggest that the loss of the use of the Pineal Gland among the masses has led our brains to rewire to imitate. I suggest we are hardwired by evolution to think logically when making observations and to adapt accordingly … but we’ve succumbed to the forces which serve to render the Pineal gland, minimally operable. Furthermore, the myriad of forces all fall under man’s adaptation to man’s inventions and away from a dynamic adaptability with the Earth. (Perfect example is our current position of trying to adapt to the food industry environment and yet wondering why degenerative and autoimmune disease is on the rise.) Lastly, I suggest that the ‘invention’ of the scientific method is simply an evolutionary measure of the time that our species reached the realization that in order to share observed findings with each other (among subgroups), with the purpose to push humanity’s evolution, we needed to agree on a standardized method of obtaining “truth” so as to share across language and thought barriers. The advent of the scientific method, in NO WAY, renders truth finding by all humans as inferior. Again, it is merely the way that we measure and share what really seems to be working (at least for the time at hand).

    • Rana, I’m afraid your post is not finished. There is a great deal of study that’s been done (and still being done) on Stone Age peoples, for example – one doesn’t need to speculate about them. So go ahead and tell us if their most cherished truths are derived from logic, reason and primary observation as opposed to imitation, habit and tradition. And this does not have to be logic or reason in its modern formulations. Tell us what you know about greater activity in their pineal glands for those who’ve left their tribes and made their way to fMRI or MRI machines. If not the Stone Age, where and when specifically was this golden age of the pineal gland, and what initiated the degeneration?

      The claim is that the brain is oriented towards imitation. ‘Oriented towards’ does not mean ‘limited to’. I’m happy to be wrong about this, but you’ll have to do a little more work to establish your point.

  9. Hi Dr. Attia

    You are right. We evolved to avoid lions etc. on the plains of Africa, not to understand the universe. We have to work at science.

    A lot of the time, what the universe is telling us does not appeal to our common sense notions. Sometimes, in science, common sense goes out the window. It is what the universe is telling us that matters. In science, we have to make our views conform to the evidence from reality.

    For instance, the universe appears to be governed by quantum mechanics. We are not wired to understand this. Nonetheless, it is what reality is telling us. Replicated A1A quality experiments confirm it.

    The gift of science is that it makes us uncomfortable. This makes us challenge our beliefs and leads to learning.

    Having said all of that, science also has limits, We may forever be limited in the questions we can ask or what we can know about the universe and nature because there may have been extremely ,important observables 5 billion years ago that we missed that we essential to see. Billions to trillions of years in the future, beings around at that time will look out into the universe and see what we saw pre 1925, never knowing what we know now- as the galaxies will have disappeared expanding faster than the speed of light away from us- all evidence of the Big Bang gone. We live at a very special time in the universe- the only time we can observationally verify that we live ata special time. 🙂

    Take care,
    Razwell

  10. it’s no reason why the mirror neurons in our pre-motor cortex and our powerful ability to emphasize…powerful article Doc, thanks for the references!

    and to contribute:
    Daniel Lieberman – The Story of the Human Body

  11. Rik,

    I concur that my post is not finished. I am but a novice.. and not in academia. It would be interesting to have the folks over at Univ. of New Mexico’s Evolutionary Psychology department weigh in on the matter. Seems to me that imitation has served the proliferation of our species. However, differentiation (aka evolution) does not happen by imitation. We’ve come a long way, baby. Could it be that the “pain of independence” was wired in as a survival mechanism at a time in our evolutionary history when torture and death was a predominant means for power and control (not that it still isn’t). In “free” society … numerous mechanisms are theorized to calcify the Pineal Gland. These include both measurable and non measurable variables. Examples are fluoride, sugar (and all inflammatory foods), 24/7 artificial light, EMF as well as fear (dogma, religion, etc.). For me … fascinating questions.

    • I’ve been warned about alluding to the sorts of things I’m about to explain – regardless –

      The qualities of the soul – are hidden – they are sacred – they are the heart of God – they are revealed naturally too but a few –

      That said – anyone is free to pursue whatever they can find – by any sane or reasonable means – but ascetic practices in search of such knoweledge is a dangerous path at best –

      The Chakra’s – the energy centers of the soul – are or have a covering over the top of thema veil – this veil must be rendered to see what’s inside the Chakra’s – if one can do so – then they have seen a part of god or his hidden creation –

      It’s not that your seeing God – but whatever you do see or hear is Sacred – thats the deal of it – plain as anyone will evr tell you –

      Many people who experience the rising of the Kundalina energies from the widened base of the lower pelvis – are afraid of a little noise (this can be loud) or the blinding white light seen as kundalina passes thru the eye Chakra and out the top of the head –

      Strange that people would fear something so profound ?

      Natural Seer’s are often born with Mars conjunct the Sun -( these energies of Mars combined with respiration(the Sun) produce just the right type and amount of energy needed to help render the veil – the veil can split or part – the veil can spin about a billions miles per hour and therefore open and most probably the veil can open in many ways – or visually(assuming your lucid enough to see it or it can open with yourself being mostly unawares it even happened –

      The anology in the Bible – the verse about circumcision – is actually speaking about these veils covering the Chakra’s – the anology in this regard being the skin(veil if you will) covering the end of the penis being removed and the veil covering the Chakra being rendered so as see the hidden realm of God –

      That verse – has nothing to do with recommending actual circumcision – but is simply an anology as already explained –

      The author of the verse knew full well what the anology meant (I assume) – and apparently also had a wicked sense of humor( a desire that blood be spilled for reasons that perhaps I best not explain except to say that some few beings use this blood to stay earthbound – if they do not remain earthbound then they are swept into a final hell of no return – it’s either finding a way to remain earthbound or a certian and final extinction

      Needless to say this is just the opposite of what ordinary people desire –

      This is not the same thing as eating meat (at least there’s a difference)

      So the Jews – and not being at fault really – have believed for thousands of years something completlty false (actual circumcision) – when the truth of the matter ( an analoly in bible verse) – is something simple but very different

      The development of the Qualities of the soul – (this being something very difficult at best) – is about enregy – the type of energy – the control of this energy and various ways these processes may be improved

      The Yogi spends eight hours a day working on just this thing – and does it for sixty years and rest assured that
      even with this amount of effort – results are not a given

      It’s a job for most people – it’s not a whim – it’s not a dream –

      Most do not have the time for this sort of thing – but know this – the Chakra’s and Soul Qualities express themselves from time too time – you don’t have to see or hear them but it happens anyway

      When the Jesus of the bible was taliking about Talents – he meant the Chakra’s – and these Talents express themselves in all ways – you don’t have to be a Seer to search for the truth – just a searcher in whatever field you desire and there are many fields and many many crops to harvest

      A few words about the Schizophrenic – do not assume what they see or hear as hallucinations –

      there are many beings in the hidden realms who like nothing better than hurting those they can and most people are not bothered by these beings or thankfully they can’t see or hear them

      The truth is a curious thing – there are people who know and apparently people who don’t – as for me – I am under no constraints of most kinds – yes – even I have to follow a couple of rules –

      But I haven’t related anything that a thinking person could not figure out on there own – just talking a little shop as it were

      I was trying to leave the reader with a perspective perhaps they did not have before – about how certain things work –

      And give the Jewish people some information they should or might give heed too – because no one else will

      Anyway – while walking to the mailbox – I pass my Anemones growing along the path – there just something else –

  12. Great blog post, Dr. Attia. I’d recommend “The Glycation Factor” by Dr. Greg Ellis.

    It contains a very good outlay of how the current medical establishment got the power it has today and has marginalized other types of medical understanding. It also explains why we are so backwards about fat and carbs. It has a very nice explanation of how so much of our research reporting is screwed up because of Relative Risk Analysis.

    Dr Ellis is pretty unique and can come across pretty strong in the book but it is because he was (and is) a researcher for over 40 years who was held back from knowing the truth for a long time by all this confusion. He makes a good point that doctors are not generally going to be the ones who know things, researchers are. The book is also a bit repetitive at times, but it is still invaluable to my understanding of all the things you just blogged about.

    Keep up the good work, sir.

  13. No slam intended towards the author, but I found it quite funny to see this article’s first comment included a desire to “mimic” a coffee recipe. That’s all…

    …interesting article, thanks!

  14. I appreciate this discussion very much. I live in a little village on the edge of the Blackfeet Reservation in Montana. The people of the village (Valier) were brought here from Belgium as a coherent transplant of most of a village, escorted by their priest. They are wheat farmers dependent on an irrigation project which was the reason for bringing them. They suffer from morbid obesity and diabetes.

    The people of the reservation (whom I have known for fifty years, some of that time as their English teacher urging them to think) also suffer from morbid obesity and diabetes. Their genetics are nothing like Belgians’. Their favorite foods are boiled meat (historical) and fry bread (a-historical). But they love sweets.

    The Belgians on this side of the line also love sweets but are more likely to bake fancy cakes and pies and also include potatoes.

    I was diagnosed with diabetes II about five years ago and immediately eliminated sugar from my diet, plus most carbs. Fifty pounds dropped off me almost in a matter of months and over the years my face and neck have thinned and tightened. I was super-conscientious because I am a writer and need my eyes, but I neglect exercise because I sit here and write all day. My blood glucose figures are okay. I’m 75.

    I’ve been interested in two factors about thinking. One is that the copycat effect is VERY strong on this Belgian side and I have to be careful not to be demonized by my differences. (I am a U of Chicago Div School grad, do a lot of thinking about post-theist patterns, and don’t much care what I look like.) These are dry land farmers who succeed because if one does well (Ugg) they all do what he did. Get fancy and you’re likely to be in trouble. Lots of cautionary tales.

    The Indian situation is quite different. They are splintered into political subgroups and right now unable to form a consensus. Outsiders take advantage — everyone has a special little deal that will make them rich. But the successful ones closely watch “white people” and do what they think they do, but don’t get the same results. They dress like white people (except the kids prefer black ghetto people) and go to college like white people, where everyone treats Indians like some kind of noble separate species, and it never turns out right. Many die young — like in their sixties. I go to the funerals of students were who NOT drunks, NOT reckless, not even fat.

    I think a lot about the stages of maturation of brains: the post-birth blossoming, the long adrenarche, adolescents and THEN the prefrontal cortex development of the early twenties — AFTER college and military service. That is, what the prefrontal cortex is good at is not timed right.

    There’s another factor. A white man asked me why the Indians here didn’t bury their dead. Clearly he is thinking of some kind of arcane theological principle. The plain fact is that this is glacial till, mostly, and without a metal shovel and a spud bar, it’s pretty tough to dig a hole. Also, the altitude is in the mid-thousands which means that ultraviolet light is strong enough to eliminate most germs. You can have all the theories you want — if you don’t come here and LOOK, it won’t be a valid experiment.

    I do SEE that pain in the amygdala from being different. (I don’t feel it much because I have friends like me.) But the failure to think is a big pain in the butt.

    Mary Scriver

  15. Two additional thoughts. One is about statistics which was taught in two halves when I took it. I took the first half three times before I got it and could pass an exam, but then the one prof who could explain it retired. I never took the second half. But that first half was VERY helpful. I wish that these studies and media reports would always include raw numbers instead of merely percentages. 1% of 500,000 is quite different from 1% of 100. So many of the more sensationalist reports are based on small actual numbers.

    The other thing is for your reading list. My original training was in theatre/acting, where we were taught to inhabit a mind and personality. When I read a scientist or theologian, I start with a biography.

    When the seminary profs complained about many of us not knowing how to do evidence and precedent rational thinking, I went over to the bookstore and in the “history of science” section found the work of Stephen Toulmin. Rounding up all his books, I spent a week marching through them. I also took his class for a few weeks but had to withdraw because he was too difficult to absorb by listening. Here’s a diagrammatic skeleton I wish I’d had then. https://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/toulmin_model.htm

    Mary Scriver

  16. Sir I just wanted to let you know that I stopped 4 times to put my phone down in excitement about my discovery of your blog. I would like to say thank you so much for what you do.

    “Healthy debate is a wonderful contributor to scientific advancement. Blogging probably isn’t.” I disagree with this your blogging has helped me understand so much about the discovery of new information, scientific thought, brain changes, copy catting, etc!!!

    I want to know if you think that your discovery of the brilliant person you are today is not in line with your understanding of evolutionary copy catting your mentors versus you just being a intellect hungry pain enduring superstar.

    I’m not the greatest writer so don’t take anything I wrote wrong. Also I’m currently at work, but I just wanted to drop in and tell you you are amazing thanks for doing what you do.

  17. For the past 6 mos, I have done whatever possible to stay within 50g of carbs. I must say, after having a lot of blood work done, that my tryglicerides are down to 35 and my doctor was alarmed. I have also experienced a few episodes of dizziness and what felt like potential feiting spells, which also through me into a panic. could you offer any adivise? Should I go back to eating more carbs? I am a bit at a loss.

    thanks you kindly,

Facebook icon Twitter icon Instagram icon Pinterest icon Google+ icon YouTube icon LinkedIn icon Contact icon