I've recently begun taking biotech in school, and I've been wondering about genes and neuroplasticity. What do specific viewpoints look like in the brain? I know that sounds like a weird question. What I mean is, if someone has certain opinion on something, is the brain structure for that single opinion the same for every human who holds it? Do genes control the way the structures change based on a person's experiences? Can these thoughts be edited by altering or removing certain genes?
I don't think you will get many responses to your post. This is a political forum, not a science forum, though it is a science section. I don't think many posters around here have the qualifications and background to discuss the biology of the brain. So, if you were looking for someone that you can copy their answers for your exam then you are probably out of luck.
Well, I'm actually just starting out and learning basic lab skills. So no answers here would help me with my GPA yet, Lol It's something I've been curious about for a while since I want to eventually work in a few biology fields to get some experience.
I doubt it. More likely that opinion is informed by memories of an experience that is not going to be widely shared. Seeing the WTC collapse on 9/11 either live or soon after on that day, in the moment, is probably the closest thing we have etched into the human brain on a collective basis ever. Most of our opinions, however, are probably more personal.
Don't know if this relates exactly to your question but multiple studies have been conducted into 'conservative' versus liberal mindsets, attitudes and opinions. From the results it appears that people holding 'conservative' viewpoints appear to have a more highly developed fear response than do more liberally minded individuals. This is not to say conservatives are on balance more cowardly than liberal voters or that Liberals are therefore 'braver'.) It just means they are l more attuned to the potential negative consequences of new things. They are simply more alert to potential risks & threats, including those inherent to any in new idea etc and are therefore less inclined towards taking new unexplored risks. (Note - teenage boys don't count, they are just .... well teenage boys). In contrast more liberally inclined thinkers are less risk adverse and less attuned to possible threats or adverse consequences of new ideas. (They have a less developed 'spidey sense' if you want.) And like all complex inherited traits the conservative/liberal response is a spectrum not a binary response. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because from natures perspective a species that contained only risk adverse members would over the long term be less 'fit' and less adaptable, being unable to exploit new opportunities when they arose. Likewise a species that contained only non-risk adverse members would probably be even less 'fit' for long term survival because too many members would take unwarranted risks on survival strategies that were not going to pan out. Turns out the best fit for survival is a more or less even mix of both traits as the positive benefits of both would allow it to exploit opportunities and avoid unwise risks. So it seems we need both conservatives and liberals to prosper as a species. (Don't tell them this though. It'll just burst their bubble and make them angry. And believe me the current pool of far right/left 'thinkers' are mad enough as it is!
if one only watches news media that enforces their opinions over and over and over, those neurons will fire faster and become more on autopilot just like driving a car, were eventually you can get from point a to point b without even remembering how you got there this article describes it better https://www.newswise.com/articles/want-to-improve-memory-strengthen-your-synapses-heres-how "repeated stimulation of sets of neurons causes the communication across synapses to be strengthened, a condition called long-term potentiation." most of us here at least listen to other opinions, as this is not a far left or far right site - but those that don't are literally being brainwashed, they just reinforce what they already want to believe over and over - that causes some on the left and the right to do crazy things, and not give it a second thought and it's not just politics it's whites that only visit sites that constantly hate on blacks or blacks that only visit sites that constantly hate on whites that stuff changes your brain, and not for the better imo
True. But what I'm wondering isn't so much about what leads to the formation of a specific opinion, but how it appears. So for example, even if two or more people with completely different experiences both come to the same conclusion about a political position, are the genes and/or configuration of those neurological pathways the same for each person? Basically, does someone's "I support Opinion A" look the same on a biological scale as somebody elses "I support Opinion A"?
Lol, they need to understand our species needs a balance. And yes, I'm familiar with a lot of those studies. I love to read those! Essentially, I want to study the same thing but with a focus on understanding (and eventually editing) the neurological mechanisms behind specific viewpoints.
For the past several years I have been engaged in developing understanding or the development of spatial cognition which when observed across different populations has certain common patterns and also differences, the differences highly influenced by culture, language, geographic environment, and the general pattern of cognitive development. My research has reinforced and in turn been reinforced by the research of others following in the footsteps of Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theory in the late 1950’s that postulated the capacity for adolescent acquisition of language is hardwired in the brain’s neural structure and the immersive acquisition of a first language, if you follow Whorfianism (Saphir - Worph) influences an individual’s worldview and cognitive perception... and some think forms the basis for how an individual stores information and makes sense of their reality. My early work in spatial cognition followed on the work of several other researchers from which a common pattern spatial development emerged, that interestingly, seem to mirror the history, stretching back to prehistory, following the same sequence of humans in evolving technology for representing (think mapping) the geographic environment. In that history, I was able to detect that aspects of human spatial cognition were closely associated with the language and vocabulary used in communication, thus speculating, in following Chomsky’s path, the capacity for spatial cognition was closely linked to similar hardwired structures as were those for language. That sent me into asking questions regarding the neural infrastructure and it’s specific means for encoding and decoding language, spatial information, culture, as well as the related framework for various memory functions. In the last 100 years or so, neural research, has progressed, often the result of what happens when certain parts of the brain are injured, and has revealed there are certain areas of the brain that are specialized for certain types of cognitive functions like storing spatial information; portions of the hippocampus, the posterior posterior parietal cortex, entorhinal cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, retrosplenial cortex, and the perirhinal cortex all playing fairly specific roles in spatial cognition (egocentric orientation, allocentic transference, specific types of spatial problem solving, and both reference memory and working memory. Then, too, are the neural pathways representations of emotion, images, sounds, smells and other memories associated with spatial information into an aggregate of memory associations. While their are general areas of the brain that seem specialized for certain functions, the specific neural representations for a specific combination of neurons for a specific memory, vary from individual to individual. But, if you could trace the specific neural pattern encoded in an individual for a specific encoding pattern, in theory it could be reinforced or erased. The technology to monitor brain activity has been around for a while and has been used in studying the general areas of neural specialization. And, just recently, the technology for conducting specific neural traces has been developed by Col Springs Harbor Labs, https://www.cshl.edu/ai-learns-to-trace-neuronal-pathways/ , a tech I’d love to be able to access for my work. Our memories are highly associated and interconnected by context, category, emotion, images, etc. the more times specific neural patterns are fired by associative memories, the more they are reinforced. But, memories are not written in stone so to speak. Use them or lose them they say, but there is another aspect... memories, the specific neural patterns that encode them are also mailable. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/am-i-right/201307/your-memory-isnt-what-you-think-it-is So, back to opinions. If you follow Chomsky, Sapir, Worph, emerging neural science, then opinions and their neural representations are influenced by language, culture, emotion, and other experiences that are associated with them and can be reinforced or changed by a number of different paths. You’ve formed opinions about people, places, things and events all your life; do you remember them all? Have those you might remember changed? How strong are they? What are they related to?
Sorry for being so late to this, but thank you so much for this information! One of the reasons why I am doing Biotech in school is to hopefully get experience working on "designer babies" later down the line. I know legislation is an issue right now, but after the public saw what that Chinese scientist did is possible, I'm confident that wealthy people with the right connections will eventually help towards making it legal. And I need that industry to exist in order to get those involved interested in letting parents choose more than eye color, athleticism or intelligence. I want to see if they can have a say in their child's personal viewpoints. At least to whatever degree possible.
