Beware the Brain
The brain's anatomy can mislead; empirical experiments provide more reliable insights than neurobiological theories, as illustrated by bird intelligence defying cortex-centric assumptions.
THE IDEA
Beware the Brain
Note that neurobiologists make, roughly, a similar distinction to that between System 1 and System 2, except that they operate along anatomical lines. Their distinction differentiates between parts of the brain, the cortical part, which we are supposed to use for thinking, and which distinguishes us from other animals, and the fast-reacting limbic brain, which is the center of emotions, and which we share with other mammals.
As a skeptical empiricist, I do not want to be the turkey, so I do not want to focus solely on specific organs in the brain, since we do not observe brain functions very well. Some people try to identify what are called the neural correlates of, say, decision making, or more aggressively the neural “substrates” of, say, memory. The brain might be more complicated machinery than we think; its anatomy has fooled us repeatedly in the past. We can, however, assess regularities by running precise and thorough experiments on how people react under certain conditions, and keep a tally of what we see.
For an example that justifies skepticism about unconditional reliance on neurobiology, and vindicates the ideas of the empirical school of medicine to which Sextus belonged, let’s consider the intelligence of birds. I kept reading in various texts that the cortex is where animals do their “thinking,” and that the creatures with the largest cortex have the highest intelligence—we humans have the largest cortex, followed by bank executives, dolphins, and our cousins the apes. Well, it turns out that some birds, such as parrots, have a high level of intelligence, equivalent to that of dolphins, but that the intelligence of birds correlates with the size of another part of the brain, called the hyperstriatum. So neurobiology with its attribute of “hard science” can sometimes (though not always) fool you into a Platonified, reductive statement. I am amazed that the “empirics,” skeptical about links between anatomy and function, had such insight—no wonder their school played a very small part in intellectual history. As a skeptical empiricist I prefer the experiments of empirical psychology to the theories-based MRI scans of neurobiologists, even if the former appear less “scientific” to the public.
When to use it
Evaluating claims about animal cognition based solely on brain anatomy.
Choosing between neuroscience and behavioral psychology when studying decision-making.
Critiquing studies that attribute cognitive functions to specific brain areas without thorough empirical backing.
Avoiding the 'Platonification' of biological findings in scientific discourse.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Bird Intelligence and Brain Anatomy
The common assumption that cortex size correlates with intelligence is challenged by parrots and other birds, which show high intelligence linked to the hyperstriatum, not the cortex. Without empirical validation, neurobiological theories can mislead.
System 1 vs System 2 Analogy
The distinction between cortical (thinking) and limbic (emotional) brain parallels the System 1 (fast, automatic) and System 2 (slow, deliberate) division in psychology. However, the author warns against reifying anatomical structures.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
How might over-reliance on specific brain regions lead to incorrect conclusions about intelligence or behavior?
In what situations would empirical experiments be more trustworthy than neurobiological theories?
Can you think of a modern example where anatomical assumptions were overturned by behavioral evidence?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Black Swan The Impact of the Highly Improbable With a new section On Robustness and Fragility (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)