Number Five

Okay, I know I promised not to obsess about my Amazon Sales Ranking in this space, but some days you have to make an exception. Take a look at Amazon's bestseller list this morning: it's Da Vinci Code, South Beach Diet, The Passion, Dan Brown's earlier book, and then... drumroll, please... Mind Wide Open.

Gotta love that Fresh Air.

Comments

[Anil]

Damn, dude, you're up to #3 now. If you'd tucked in a chapter on weight loss, I think you'd be #2. Congrats! (And where's the link to your excellent story on comment spammers, a subject that's near and dear to my heart?)

[Denny]

Fantastic! You've made several important insights about brain and behavior accessible to everyone. I loved your book.

[Susan]

okokok! :O
Went out and bought it. CDN$40.23 tax paid. Yikes! (40.23 Canadian Dollar = 29.98211 US Dollar)
Dern good thing I know this will be worth it! :)

I'm off to read and ponder!
Have a glorious weekend everyone!

[Lori]

I just purchased your book today. Can't wait to read it. Decided to do so when I listened to your interview in Fresh Air last night. I'm sure that this will be the first time I'll be able to read a "brain" book in its entirety. Thanks so much!

[Shannon]

Hi there,
I listened to your interview on fresh air on my way home from work. The topic immediately piqued my interest given that I am an MRI imager/research assistant studying the brain at UCSF. Several of your comments appeared to contain misinformation regarding what is known about the brain. First of all, your "thought experiment" should have been described as a functional MRI experiment (as opposed to structural MRI) since it was measuring brain activation levels. It should have been pointed out, and please forgive me if you have done this in your book, that real research involves much replication of such studies before it is cited as experimental evidence. Also, studies involving functional MRI typically contain quite a bit of "noise" in the signal acquired, and it was not clear to me how many times the scanner ran the acquisition sequence in trying to measure your brain's activation during your "idea formation" portion of the scan. It sounded to me they only ran the sequence twice. Typically these are ran at least 5 times in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the scan. Otherwise, how can you really be certain, and cite this experience as evidence (thereby allowing you to sell more copies of your book), that you were measuring what you had intended?

Secondly, it is grossly irresponsible for someone interested in the brain to add to the common misconception that we only use approximately 10% of our brains. Citing your functional MRI "experiment" as corroborative evidence to such an old wives tale is equally ridiculous for reasons I mentioned above. Did you mean that we only use 10% of our POTENTIAL or of our mass? If you think about it, and I hope readers of this comment are, could you really survive if someone were to remove the 90% of your brain that "isn't being used"? I find it rather bothersome when people repeat such comments as though it were common knowledge, and it is even more annoying when someone, such as yourself, is attempting to profit from it.

Finally, in your description of "drugs" in the brain, you had mentioned oxytocin as contributing to the numbing of your wife's stress response to the events of 9/11. There are a number of problems with this correlation (the first of which is that fact that this merely a corrolary and not a causal relationship). Oxytocin is not a drug--it is a hormone. Drugs usually refer to supplements ingested that are not typically produced by the body, but I'll forgive you that distinction since you were likely trying to include a larger percentage of the population into the discussion. However, the major point here is that oxytocin is produced in the body to help stimulate milk production and to stimulate uterine contractions during childbirth. The initial release of oxytocin is stimulated by rapidly decreasing levels of progesterone (another hormone most people are familiar with) that signifies it's time to give birth. What you failed to mention in your interview is that release of this hormone is actually PREVENTED by exposure to stressors (aka planes flying into buildings). So, unless your wife was nursing at the time of the planes hitting the two towers it is highly unlikely that any oxytocin was left in her system. It certainly wouldn't remain in the system three days after stimulation of contractions, and even if she were nursing at the time of impact her production of milk would actually cease in response to adrenal stimulation. There is no evidence I am aware of suggesting the same effect BY oxytocin ON the adrenal glands. Human beings are simply designed to preserve life, and when planes fly into buildings the body is much more likely to enter into "flight-or-flight" response (adrenal stimulation) than into nursing behavior (release of oxytocin resulting in milk flow). I would be interested in reading papers suggesting otherwise, but in the meantime I hope people take your book with a HUGE grain of salt.
I also hope that you have already considered these facts in writing your book, and if you haven't then I would hope you make the appropriate corrections (or at least be more specific in future interviews).

There are plenty more likely reasons for your wife's differing response to the stressful events of 9/11. Did you consider that perhaps your wife is simply prone, in general, to react differently to stressors? What about the possility that many people in New York likely responded similarly to her (disbelief and/or denial?) but without recently giving birth? I could go on, but I think you get the idea. The point is that your observations are akin to those of Piaget in applying limited observations to biology

There has been too much hard science done on these subjects to allow certain bits of misinformation to continue their circulation, and I sincerely hope people don't take your observations as comparable to real scientific observation.

Thanks for your time,
Shannon

P.S. Your book is not on any of the best seller pages I could find on Amazon... But if it were, it would be among others including: "Hacking Amazon: worming our way to the best seller list"; "Mother knows best 2004 CALENDAR"; "Ultimate Spanish Reference" (a dictionary package). Kudos!

[Shannon]

Sorry about the "P.S." portion of my comment. I noticed that your book is indeed #3, but this doesn't indicate merrit, just sales.

[Steven Johnson]

Shannon, you might want to actually read the book, or at least listen to the interview more closely, before launching into this kind of critique, particularly in the tone you use. But hey -- it's the internet. To respond to your specific points:

First of all, your "thought experiment" should have been described as a functional MRI experiment (as opposed to structural MRI) since it was measuring brain activation levels.

It is clearly described as such in the interview. (I just listened to the web version to confirm.) And the book contains a description of the difference between the two.

Secondly, it is grossly irresponsible for someone interested in the brain to add to the common misconception that we only use approximately 10% of our brains.

You obviously were not paying attention to what I was saying. I was actually critiquing the "you only use ten percent" cliche, not confirming it. The point I was making was that it was ludicrous to imagine that you'd somehow be smarter if you were using 100% of your brain at a single point in time. You've seen fMRI images; you know that the zones of activity are limited to specific areas depending on what the subject is doing. The "10%" cliche misses the whole beauty of that specialization, which is what I was trying to say.

So, unless your wife was nursing at the time of the planes hitting the two towers it is highly unlikely that any oxytocin was left in her system. It certainly wouldn't remain in the system three days after stimulation of contractions, and even if she were nursing at the time of impact her production of milk would actually cease in response to adrenal stimulation.

First, she was nursing as the planes flew into the buildings, thank you very much. Second, my sources for this section of the book were Sue Carter and Shelley Taylor, both of whom I interviewed for the book, both of whom are pioneering researchers on the role of oxytocin. Here's just one study that supports what I say in the book, and what I said in the interview. I quote below from a document I found on a quick search online just now, plenty more where that came from:

" The UCLA study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the Psychological Review of the American Psychological Association, based its findings on analysis of hundreds of biological and behavioral studies of response to stress by thousands of humans and animal subjects.

"The tend-and-befriend method of coping with stress seems to be characteristic of females in many species," Taylor said.

Just as the fight-or-flight response is based on biological changes that occur in response to stress, the UCLA researchers propose that the tend-and-befriend pattern may have a biological basis. In particular, the research team points to the hormone oxytocin as playing a large role in the tend-and-befriend response, in conjunction with sex hormones and the body's natural opioid system.

"Oxytocin has been studied largely for its role in childbirth, but it is also secreted in both men and women as a response to stress," she said. "Animals and people with high levels of oxytocin are calmer, more relaxed, more social and less anxious. In several animal species, oxytocin leads to maternal behavior and to affiliation.

"Men secrete oxytocin too, but the effects of oxytocin seem to be reduced by male hormones, so oxytocin may have reduced effects on men's physiology and behavior under stress. Oxytocin, along with other stress hormones, may play a key factor in reducing females' response to stress."

[Shannon]

Dear Steven,
Thank you for the prompt reply and for your clarification. I hope you can forgive the tone, but given the ubiquity of pop-psychology and biology hacks in the media these days (*cough* Dr. Phil *cough*) it is sometimes difficult to discern the real researchers from the fakes. In this case, I was apparently mistaken. I wanted to call fresh air to get clarification on these topics last night but couldn't seem to locate the number (or a signal on my phone). I probably shouldn't be replying to topics I care deeply about while trying to eliminate caffeine from my daily "diet"...lesson learned. Though feeling quite sheepish regarding the irreverence in my preceding comment I am very happy that you have indeed done your homework. I will look further into the research you mentioned since I am clearly not up-to-date with the latest research on oxytocin.

Giving credit where it's due,
Shannon

[Susan]

Good on ya, Steven!
I abhor small-minded people, especially ones who jump on their 'professionalism' and only hear what they want to hear.
Sending more snowflakes your way! ;)

[Susan]

Shannon: it takes a big person to admit a mistake, even a professional. Thank-you.
I really need to remember to 'refresh' before I post a comment here in case I miss something myself. I will send you some snowflakes too! ;)

[Steven Johnson]

That, my friends, was the shortest flame war in the history of the Internet. Thanks for the gracious reply, Shannon. I'm glad my response helped clear things up...

[Susan]

oh hush up Steven...:P quit laughing:P don't you have a book to edit or something to do????
roflmao
gotta watch out for us protective Canucks!

[Anita Rowland]

That *was* a good interview! I've heard you several times on the radio recently, but the Fresh Air format really made that one stand out.

[Jonathan Davis]

Dear Steve,

When my girlfriend forgot to get your book for me in New York last week I nearly wept ( am in London and your book only comes out in April).

I ordered it maximum speed delivery via Amazon USA and I have devoured half of it within hours. It is superb.

Your rankings are very well deserved. Onwards to number one!

Kind regards

Jonathan

[michael sippey]

steven -- congrats! and nice job on fresh air. fantastic interview.

[John]

Hi Steven,
I have been reading your blog for some time and when I read about Mind Wide Open I went out to BN and bought the last copy. I"m almost halfway through and am enjoying it very much.

[Dave]

Mr Johnson, After hearing your interview on npr I felt an overwhelming wave of endogenous drugs pushing me to B&N to check out your book, and I happily obeyed.

Although I was sad to not find anything about sense-of-direction in 'Mind Wide Open' -- I am what the Chinese call a "lu4chi1" ("road idiot"); I have no sense/memory of direction -- the parts that I read were very accessible and enjoyable. For me, the works of Dennett and others can induce drowsiness, making reading a chore. Not so with your refreshing work.

I noticed that the title is also available as an eBook, so I just need to decide on a format before I make you $17 (okay, $1) richer.

Hope you come to Center City, Philadelphia B&N for a book signing.

[Mrwarmth]

I was driving in LA and heard your Fresh Air interview. Good to see you are still writing and publishing. A nice blast from the past. Since we last communicated, I have retired and am myself working on a novel. Perhaps we'll meet in a radio studio some day :)

Good luck!

-Niall

[Greg Dahlmann]

For those who missed Steven's interview on Fresh Air, here's the permalink.

[daniel luke]

All I want to know is: what are you going to do with all the cash???

[Anna]

BTW the oxytocin mention in the above flame skirmish reminded me - my absolute favorite insight in the book was on how we're all on drugs all the time, neurologically speaking. And so unaware of it...

Also - in case anyone's missed it - back in the Feb. 12 "your brain: discuss" comments is a stunning poem from Marybeth Highton. URL is here:
http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/movabletype/archives/000142.html

[Bob]

Good article on google v/s gates. I think google will win but who knows with all of gates money.