
Can neuroscience give my brain the plasticity of a child's? - RV86
http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/can-i-make-my-brain-as-plastic-as-a-childs/
======
xaa
A much better overview:

[http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics](http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics)

I am a bit torn about this subject. So, in my day job as a biomedical
researcher, we would like to have a lot of evidence that something works
before giving it to people.

But the FDA/research system is not set up to deal with things like this, that
are not to treat a disease per se, but rather to enhance a healthy human. Many
MDs would see cognitive enhancement as "cosmetic" and not worth any level of
risk. You will note how almost all the evidence for putative nootropics comes
from AD and similar research. Not healthy, young or middle-aged normals.

I almost wish there were some kind of network for DIY biohackers to
investigate nootropics by setting up blinded studies. Because that kind of
research will not otherwise be funded or performed, and despite the risks and
dubiousness of data that comes outside the IRB/clinical trial system, it seems
better than nothing.

~~~
SilasX
>But the FDA/research system is not set up to deal with things like this, that
are not to treat a disease per se, but rather to enhance ... healthy, young or
middle-aged normals.

So how did plastic surgery get through? Would that kind of procedure not be
approved today under current standards? Would they be allowed to experiment at
all, given the (in the FDA's view) limited benefits?

~~~
xaa
Most plastic surgery is not drug-based, so there is a lot less research that
needs to be done on the molecular level to get it through. Much like
nootropics, plastic surgery also has a use-case for "diseased" people: people
born deformed or injured in accidents.

The big exception is Botox (aka botulinium toxin). Yes, the safety standards
were a little lower in the 1960s, when it was being researched for therapeutic
use. But also, botulinium toxin is very heavily researched because it is a
useful molecular tool in other contexts, so we know quite well how it works,
even though it is an extremely dangerous substance if used improperly. For
many nootropics, we just don't know.

And if anything, the standards for something that is supposed to be operating
on the brain are even higher than those applied to facial muscles, skin, etc.

------
vilhelm_s
Considering the cat/kitten experiment, where the more plastic brain was able
to permanently re-purpose brain cells from one task to another, it seems
slightly dangerous. Suppose I take the pill, go to the music classes, and end
up an excellent mountain dulcimer player---and then find out that I
accidentally overwrote my programming ability? :)

~~~
sebastianconcpt
Exactly. There is a reason for the plasticity decay

------
ohyes
"I hit a plateau..." "I haven't picked up my dulcimer in several months"

In my experience learning instruments follows a 90/10 sort of rule, you can
get the easy stuff in a matter of weeks, the harder stuff is subject to severe
diminishing returns. You have to practice much more to make the relevant
progress. That virtuoso is not a virtuoso because he practiced as a child when
he had neuro plasticity, he's a virtuoso because he practices hours a day and
then thinks about his practicing when he's not practicing. Even someone who is
a moderately good professional does this.

~~~
jakobegger
Same for sports. You'll improve extremely quickly in the beginning, then
you'll hit a plateau and you have to train much longer and harder to improve.

------
bsder
Has anybody shown that having an adult brain with non-child plasticity is a
limitation?

I find that my progress on guitar is a direct function of _time_ , which is
something _else_ that children have in abundance but adults do not.

~~~
dominotw
Try learning a language.

~~~
bsder
I have. Probably the hardest one for English speakers--Japanese.

Again, my progress is solely a function of time. If I could spend 8+ hours a
day on it like a child, I suspect I would become very good.

------
jakobegger
I'm very sceptical of drugs that interfere with neural function. Our brain is
extremely complex, with dozens (or hundreds?) of chemicals interacting in
intricate manners. We understand not even a tiny fraction of it, just some
bits and pieces, and we think we can "fix" or even improve it by ingesting
some chemical compound?

Even the few psycho-active medicines we have, anti-depressants etc., barely
work at all. They might have some positive effects in studies, but if you
actually know someone who depends on such medication, you'll know that they're
far from a cure; many people even refuse to take them because of the terrible
side effects. And those are pills we have a few decades of experience with!

I'm not holding my breath for a wonder drug that will miraculously engance our
learning ability.

------
UhUhUhUh
My answer is "no". Just because the initial pruning has to quickly find a
balance between efficiency, speed and reliability vs. width, breadth of
input/processing of new data. The 15,000 synapses/neuron that we have grown at
around age 3 must be cut in half... After that, plasticity is still there and
possibly can be boosted somewhat but not to the initial level. We have enough
potential for plasticity left to learn and discover until an advanced age but
it will require more work (i.e. expense of energy) and more sustained
stimulation because the brain now needs to be "convinced" that it's going to
be useful (i.e. rewarding) which our robotic lives doesn’t really allow, let
alone promotes.

------
otakucode
Would that be a good idea?

I could certainly see MANY potential dangers inherent in such a thing. Sure
neuroplasticity sounds like it's all sunshine and kittens... but there's a
good chance that there are some reasons our brains didn't evolve to retain
that sort of plasticity throughout life...

That being said, if there is an experiment which has a decent chance of
accomplishing this, I will be first to volunteer. I am aware that it may
destroy me entirely, but I would be willing to take the risk. If nothing else,
perhaps I'd be able to make a little contribution to the collective knowledge
of mankind by showing how terrible of a thing too much neuroplasticity can be.

------
xhrpost
Bit of a tangent, but I just finished reading Spark which shines some light on
how exercise can improve neuroplasticity.
[https://books.google.com/books?id=zM_9Ft1j40UC&lpg=PT36&dq=p...](https://books.google.com/books?id=zM_9Ft1j40UC&lpg=PT36&dq=plasticity%20intitle%3Aspark&pg=PT36#v=onepage&q=plasticity%20intitle:spark&f=false)

------
api
It's always important to keep in mind that these things can be double-edged
swords. There may be a tradeoff between plasticity and things like depth of
focus on single subjects or the wide-ranging associations that characterize
"wisdom."

Absolutely not saying we shouldn't play with this stuff, just that the fact
that systems are full of trade-offs should be remembered.

------
ajarmst
The brain is an absurdly complex, adaptive system that is the product of
millions of years of evolution. We're not even really sure where personality
and the "me" part of the self come from, other than that they seem to have a
stronger genetic component than most people realize. We don't understand how
it works remotely well enough to have a useful whole-brain model of its
function (which means a lot of drug research is a primitive try-it-and-see-
what-happens method, rather than the result of a detailed functional model of
what SHOULD happen). We don't understand most of its more subtle pathologies
(like depression) well enough to even properly evaluate treatments. Most
treatments we do have for such things are of limited and short-term efficacy,
and we don't even understand why they work. Maybe we're not nearly ready to
start large-scale manipulation of its fundamental properties?

------
s_q_b
I'm not as pessimistic as most about the potential for nootropics. The usual
argument against them states that if there was a way to significantly improve
neural performance, evolution would have found it already.

However, our bodies and brains evolved in an environment of near constant food
scarcity, where surplus glucose was the chief constraint on neural
development.

Can you imagine the developmental pathways that could be opened if our bodies
could leverage the massive amounts of excess energy we consume for more than
stuffing it into adipose tissue?

------
aortega
I don't get this "Child's brains are better" thing. A Child needs up to 10
years to speak, read and write correctly in their native language. An adult
can do it in a couple of years, months sometimes (not my case!)

I have a small kid and yes, their intelligence development is shocking and
completely unlike any other creature on earth. But are there any proof that
childrens are actually better/faster at anything than an adult?

~~~
yincrash
Learning a second language is not the same as learning a first language. There
are many things you use from your first language that you use to learn a
second.

------
narrator
Do you really want to be that plastic? Mania may result because all your
enforced norms suddenly become malleable. The ruts in the road serve a
purpose.

------
sporkenfang
The author lost me at 'sewing the eyes shut of newborn kittens'. Sometimes
animal testing is necessary, and sometimes it's unnecessarily cruel.

------
obblekk
No...? I found this article to be a lot of puff with a relatively simplistic
interpretation of some cherry picked research.

~~~
sharp11
Yes, for example, in second language acquisition the hypothesis of a critical
period has been pretty much disproven. Also, the conflation of perfect pitch
with musical ability is a big stumble. Still, quite an interesting article.

------
coldcode
All I take is 2000mg of B12 twice a (work) day which does seem to help in
concentration.

~~~
meowface
The issue is that especially with metrics as flexible as "concentration" or
"focus" (which in some cases can be controlled entirely by your mood,
location, or your own willful intent), the placebo effect can be very
powerful. Keep taking them, because it's probably not hurting, but it's
difficult to know if it is empirically affecting your concentration outside of
the placebo effect.

------
sebastianconcpt
It's a great question but things have a price. You might hack and win that
raised plasticity but you might compromise your memory.

Natural Selection put there a decay in brain's plasticity for a really good
and time proven reason.

This is just an hypothesis: the decay in brain plasticity diminishes neophilia
and raises neophobia to preserve culture's identity. The new generation
attacks the current one with tides of its own new cool and the old resists
with conservative trenches of realism. Over and over.

~~~
ugexe
Its a stretch to say natural selection put decay in the brain for a good
reason. Not every trait was the result of positive or negative selection.
Traits can occur as side effects of another trait (of another trait etc etc)
that was positive or negatively selected.

If a new, sub optimal trait does not negatively affect the specimens ability
to reproduce then there is no reason to try and select against it. Such a
circumstance would not imply the trait was positively selected for.

