"Many labs have observed that these critical brain regions increase in activity when people perform difficult tasks, whether the effort is physical or mental. You can therefore help keep these regions thick and healthy through vigorous exercise and bouts of strenuous mental effort."
Woah woah woah there. That doesn't follow at all. Even if you buy the "exercise model" - which can't possibly be tested by observing brain activity over minutes, since improvement would happen over weeks to months - that doesn't imply an ability to ward off old age over decades. In the case of literal muscle exercise, for example, playing pro sports will certainly strengthen your muscles now but likely cause long-term injuries. https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/public-healt...
> Woah woah woah there. That doesn't follow at all.
And the article acknowledges that it might not, while discussing as yet understudied observations.
In the sentence right before your quote: "We’re still studying this question, but our best answer at the moment is: work hard at something."
While your comment is true (no established causation yet), this reminds me of the climate change debate. For the sake of argument, human carbon production may or may not contribute to global warming. For the sake of argument, global warming may or may not be happening, and may or may not be bad.
But the solution proposed to reduce global warming, "reduce pollution," is good in and of itself. We're pretty sure pollution increases disease and death. It also looks bad and smells bad. How much is too much is debatable, but minimizing it as well as we practically can is a good thing. There are no mainstream proposals, as far as I know, to entirely eliminate pollution (as close as I can come to your equating exercise with professional sports), but dodging climate change has become a way to dodge responsibility for pollution.
Thinking is good. Thinking moderately harder is probably better. Getting up and going to the bathroom is good. Walking to the store is probably better.
If I happen to retain cognitive ability in later years, from exercise and thinking, great. But regardless, I'll do it because it's already good for me in other ways.
Since there seems to be some confusion, I'll restate what you are saying a bit because it's important.
Increasing activity in a brain region doesn't necessarily make it "thick and healthy", no matter how much you do it. This is the "exercise model" and it is a hypothesis (if not still at the conjecture stage, not my field).
I'm sorry, can you clarify your point? What is the problem with the idea that difficult tasks (both mental and physical) help to prevent atrophy in a certain part of the brain?
The tl;dr is that brain training makes you better at that one particular task. Whether that carries over to anything else is unknown. It is considered a useful technique only insofar as that it is easy to do, and we don't have a lot of other options to try anyway. But actual, measured benefits are difficult to find.
I am not against it as a concept. But much more research needs to be done to see if it has any actual value beyond the simple joy of doing such things.
The essay you linked seems to be a non-sequitur. Berrett suggests in the original article that performing a difficult task increases activity in the cingulate cortex, which might help to prevent aging. The essay you linked merely says that neuropsychological training probably doesn't make people generally smarter.
Becoming smarter and preventing aging are two different goals.
I did look at that paper. Here is a quote from that paper:
> Based on this review, all three approaches to computerized training – classic cognitive training tasks, neuropsychological software, and video games – appear to hold promise for improving cognitive abilities in cognitively normal, community-dwelling older adults who have a higher risk of cognitive decline as they age.
So you are using a paper of small sample size, which doesn't even contradict the conclusion, as your main evidence to disprove a conclusion you disagree with? That seems like a logical fallacy.
My original conclusion wasn't that it didn't work, it was that the amount of actual research done was surprisingly small, and so that we didn't actually know what was being proclaimed as a done deal.
It turns out I was wrong, and that there has been more research than I thought.
The original article actually mentions Sudoku and the simple brain training apps and says that they don't think they're effective because they don't push your brain into difficult territory.
Op's article suggests that there's only "brain exercise" when it's difficult to the point one feels bad or even painful. Very different from "simple joy" as you describe. I'm not saying that there are studies supporting that (I'm not sure), but there's a clear difference we should be aware of before discarding the idea.
That's an idea that sounds good. Sounds like something people might want to be true. So any scientist should be extra careful in checking if observations sufficiently support this idea.
After all, science is just a process mainly for avoiding lying to yourself about reality.
Playing pro-sports is not at all what they are talking about. Pro-sports puts demands on the body way beyond what a good exercise routine would be for a typical person.
you seem to be of the opinion that because concussions are bad, the idea of exercise aiding aging or other mental benefit isnt supported? that's absurd. there's significant evidence of the benefits of physical activity to mental health. which is pretty obvious considering that muscle contraction is entirely driven by the CNS.
here is some study into these various ideas. google your heart out but this was the first i found.
Isn't it already sort of scientifically proven that "if you don't use it, you lose it" wrt to the brain? In that case, the validity of the 'exercise model' follows from that, at least for 'maintenance' mode (what the article seems to be arguing for). Now for hypertrophy (actually "becoming smarter"?), the question may still be open...
Playing pro sports may weaken muscles. During a NHL season players loose up to a kilo of muscle mass. That one of the reason why the rate of injuries rises towards the end of season as the players got less muscles that protect against injuries.
> In the United States, we are obsessed with happiness. But as people get older, research shows, they cultivate happiness by avoiding unpleasant situations.
Someone asked a few days ago what the best habit was that HNers developed last year and what the health benefits were. I realised I shouldn't do things because I thought they'd make me happy, and it has changed everything. Put another way, I don't only do things I think I'm going to enjoy any more.
It's an incredibly powerful mindset to not have an expectation of happiness or enjoyment as an outcome of an action. I used not to do a lot of things because I couldn't see the point or because I thought I wouldn't like them. Now I do those things anyway, more just to see what they're like rather than because I expect to enjoy them. I do things to see what actually happens instead of limiting myself to my own preconceptions.
Most of the time, I'm right, and I don't enjoy those things, but that's OK. They're still showing me different aspects of life and allowing me to exercise arguably our most innate gift, the ability to experience. There have been a few surprises though. I've taken up sports I'd previously discounted, and now I've stuck with them long enough I can see the appeal. I'm learning a musical instrument and get much less frustrated because I see the learning process as just training my brain, a function of time and effort. There's no point in being frustrated.
Now I just view experiences as things to be experienced, without requiring anything more of them. This means there's less pressure on me and on them to give me anything. My attitude to them and awareness of them is more important than deriving happiness and enjoyment.
Now I've written that it reads like zen, but when I practiced zen it was because I wanted to be happy from it. The thing with learning is it's not enough to have the knowledge. You need the insight to really internalise something. It's that "A-ha!" moment. I guess I arrived at the same conclusion as the Zennists from a different direction. Only doing things you think will make you happy is just a way too limiting mindset.
It really has been a complete revolution in my approach to life. I can't recommend it enough. And it looks like this attitude will keep my brain healthy too.
This approach opens you up to far more opportunities. Say you have a spare weekend and you aren't sure what to do with it, but feel like going out. You could use the opportunity to try something you wouldn't normally do: go to an event on something you know nothing about, or even on a subject you don't really like. When you're there, find people who are really into the subject and try to understand from them why they like it. Maybe you'll see what they see, maybe you won't. But this curious mindset will pay dividends if you need to be creative, or develop rapport with people, or just want to see what's out there.
I'd had some things going on and wanted a holiday. So I went on my own. I went out to bars on my own, which I wouldn't have done before because I'd have thought I'd have a had a rubbish night. But I ended up meeting a few people, then a few more and had an amazing night. I realised that it was down to me to make the effort to have a good night, so I started speaking to the people around me.
There are so many opportunities every day just waiting to be taken. I used to close myself off from them because I wanted to somehow cherry-pick in advance only those that would make me happy, or lead to 'good' outcomes. When you remove that constraint, you become open to much more of life.
I have rarely heard this insight and perspective put so well. I have often "felt drawn to the bad" for the experience dividends and by the same reasoning. In some ways, I have always tried to train myself to be drawn to things I do not prefer. Lowering happiness expectations is a better way to express this and gets you there quicker! I would take it further, and recommend dropping all expectations, but I suppose at that point we arrive at zen or taoism.
> I would take it further, and recommend dropping all expectations, but I suppose at that point we arrive at zen or taoism.
Yeah that's the natural extension of it, but I'm not quite at that stage yet :-) I think with Zen, Taoism, etc. it's far better to reach the same insights and realisations - have more "A-ha!" moments - than try to push yourself into things before you want to do them and understand why. Most of those traditions are just roadmaps to the territory (definitely useful, but maps all the same), but I digress.
> This means that pleasant puzzles like Sudoku are not enough to provide the benefits of superaging. Neither are the popular diversions of various “brain game” websites. You must expend enough effort that you feel some “yuck.” Do it till it hurts, and then a bit more.
This sounds a lot like software development. We are constantly on the edge of frustration.
Working on a complex problem can be at the same time exhausting and satisfying.
From what I've read, experienced, and observed, it would seem novelty is the crucial element in preserving and, even heightening, mental acuteness. Whether you are a programmer or a chess player; that alone might not be sufficient--you should always pursue novel activities. I tend to suggest music theory and learning to play an instrument.
Programming and software development need not be complex, and indeed a lot of programmers do not work on complex things, much of what they do is just routine, and that will not be enough stimuli for your brain.
I think continuously becoming a better programmer is probably a good way to go at this. If you can sprinkle in some traveling and learning another language or to while you're at it, that would perfect. And maybe learn a musical instrument as well.
Just went on a trip with my recently retired father.
The effect of a total change of routine, new experiences and challenges, emotional experiences (stress, wonder, happiness), was huge.
It was the first time I saw him look alive in months.
In retirement, I think you cam get stuck in am easy, comfortable rut. As in working age life but more so. Travel to novel places, with novel people, doing novel things, can force you out of that rut. Probably worth remembering for younger rutters as well.
There is so much novelty one encounters when traveling, on multiple levels. I definitely recommend everyone to travel and visit new places as much/often as possible, even in their own country.
Of course, I'm not talking about candy tripping in Ibiza.
To you and your GP, reducing stress is a good goal, whether it specifically causes grey hair or not. Unless you're writing code to stop an imminent killer asteroid, most jobs and tasks are not important enough or urgent enough to make you feel bad. If you feel stressed, long term, de-stress your job or change it.
There is some evidence for chronic stress causing premature achromotrichia,[24] but no definite link has been established. It is known that the stress hormone cortisol accumulates in human hair over time, but whether this has any effect on hair color has not yet been resolved.
Consider a world in which the cancer research community did nothing more than evaluate how fast cancer killed people based on their lifestyle choices, while onlookers nodded wisely and commented on the the minutiae of whether or not to use a stationary bike when faced with a cancer diagnosis.
And yet for aging? Lunacy.
Is this not an age of biotechnology? People have very, very odd attitudes towards the fatal medical condition known as aging that they do not bring out for any other medical condition.
I'm curious if proponents of 'immortality' do not fear a world where there are tremendous social (not to mention environmental) consequences to significantly extended life/health-spans?
If you are under a certain age in any country (say <30) do you not feel like you live in a world ruled by the conservatism and culture of an older generation? These prior generations have the head start to protect their status quo. Imagining every generation persisting on top of another, all sorts of strange and dark likelihoods fill my imagination.
Most peoples' formative life views develop in a certain brief segment of their lives, from which their subsequent experiences simply reinforce. It's sadly a rare few that continually adapt and evolve their views with an open mind. A population of 7 billion+ immortals where the vast majority are set in their ways is terrifying, and being born into such an oppressive world would fill me with dread.
Suppose that you lived in a world where aging didn't exist, and people typically lived for hundreds of years. (There would still be deaths due to accidents, violence, and occasional disease). And suppose it had exactly the problems you're imagining, where 800 year old oligarchs had accumulated lots of money and power and were preventing changes that younger generations wanted. Would your proposed solution be to release a virus that would gradually cripple everyone's bodies and minds over several decades before eventually killing them?
> Suppose that you lived in a world where aging didn't exist, and people typically lived for hundreds of years. (There would still be deaths due to accidents, violence, and occasional disease).
I'm sure Sci-Fi novels have explored this topic in detail, but when I read this I don't worry about older conservative generations - I worry that everyone will become paralysed by conservatism, including young people.
Taking drugs, partying all night, riding a motorcycle, leaving your home at all. Why would you risk centuries of your lifetime just for a little thrill? Wouldn't it be safer to stay at home browsing the web? You can still have fun next century, no need to rush it...
Still, I don't have a good answer to your question.
If you are under a certain age in any country (say <30) do you not feel like you live in a world ruled by the conservatism and culture of an older generation? These prior generations have the head start to protect their status quo. Imagining every generation persisting on top of another, all sorts of strange and dark likelihoods fill my imagination.
Just because they have a desire to protect the status quo does not actually mean that they can protect the status quo.
A population of 7 billion+ immortals where the vast majority are set in their ways is terrifying, and being born into such an oppressive world would fill me with dread.
As opposed to having humans who can't remember the past because the experience of the old generation passed away?
Those who don't remember the lesson of history are doomed to repeat it?
Yes, the world will be confronted with new problems that we don't have to deal with before. We may have to seriously consider population control and other measures.
But does anybody seriously want to go to the old status quo where old people are given serious diseases like cancers, Alzheimer and heart attacks, where they are forced to suffer until they finally die, often not of their own choice?
- I can also imagine a world where the 0.01% continue to accumulate wealth, they will certainly have a growing ability to protect their position. The world has finite resources, when "immortality" is discovered will certainly have an effect on wealth and power distributions.
- I would argue many people today forget what happens to them/society within years well within their lifetimes.
- "Population control / other measures" -- hence my dread.
- I think improving quality of life is very different than extending it into multi-generational periods.
I don't think wealth accumulation is an issue. However, heritage is what heavily contributes to wealth accumulation. With aging gone, and subsequently, heritage heavily delayed, wealth distribution gap will become smaller, not larger.
Life expectancy increases tend to decrease birth rate. And with Elon Musk currently working on colonizing Mars, and seasteading making some progress, there will likely be a lot of place to live in by the time we work out aging. Actually, if both fail, there is a place for 6 billion more people on Earth.
You're afraid of your own prejudices about something that isn't even here yet. And I don't understand your use of word "immortality": it is aging we are discussing here, a condition that causes people to die, often in misery and pain over long periods of time. I think it is a very humane, global, noble cause, and I honestly don't understand how you can be so cynical about it.
There are multiple issues with this idea. First, I just don't think you can really tell that from this perspective. That's just thinking too far into the future. This sort of argument is likely to look like a Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 [1] to our descendants.
Have you actually considered how many people it would take to use all energy that sun and future tech can provide? I'm sure no human being can give you even a rough estimate.
It's not like solving aging will break markets. There's a balance between supply & demand, which will indirectly regulate birth rate due to parenting costs.
Universe is really vast, if not infinite. And when we have more people, alive, and doing meaningful things while automation takes over menial tasks, it's really going to make us tackle other problems faster, like transportation.
Have you actually considered how many people it would take to use all energy that sun and future tech can provide? I'm sure no human being can give you even a rough estimate.
It's an unimaginably large number of humans. Seven billion human beings is a drop in the bucket as far as I am concerned.
Universe is really vast, if not infinite. And when we have more people, alive, and doing meaningful things while automation takes over menial tasks, it's really going to make us tackle other problems faster, like transportation.
There's only so much matters and so many stars in the universe. Granted, they can last a stupendous long time, especially red dwarf stars.
Future technologies aren't something that can't be predicted entirely, but we can only consider the laws of physics as we know of to constrain our prediction.
Last time I check, there is no way to produce unlimited energy for eternity, no way to defeat entropy. Until that happen, we'll have to consider population control unless our numbers are stable or in decline.
Probably the opposite will happen, actually. Just liked caged animals that don't breed, our habitat will so far be removed from our natural one, our species may die out from lack of ability to form natural male-female relationships anymore.
> Those who don't remember the lesson of history are doomed to repeat it
This maxim is hardly a law of nature; it's sometimes true and sometimes false.
Also, we have managed to escape this problem many times in history: by studying history. Human knowledge accumulates and is refined throughout the generations. Sure, more information has been lost than retained, but repeating mistakes is not inevitable.
Even so, given the option to live forever, I wouldn't forgo it so that you could avoid said dread.
Regardless, I don't think that your reasoning about people being set in their ways is valid given significantly longer life or healthspans. A lot of existing conservatism is from people with families (don't rock the boat so I can focus on raising my young!) and people who are suffering the ill effects of aging (don't rock the boat so that I can retire in peace!).
The first group will likely diminish if we have longer healthspans (or else we'll run up against the barriers of overpopulation). Even if not, longer healthspans mean a longer period where people are neither raising families nor mainly preoccupied with living with advanced aging. As a result, I don't think the effect you're describing will be a significant one.
>A population of 7 billion+ immortals where the vast majority are set in their ways is terrifying.
Maybe. But not as terrifying as actually dying.
Frankly, I'm willing to deal with any problems arising from longer and/or indefinite lifespans, more than I'm willing to deal with the impermanence of life.
Yes, immortality would have to be accompanied by neuroplasticity drugs. The biggest benefit of neuroplasticity drugs, btw, would not be that users would acquire new knowledge, but that they would forget outdated knowledge.
As I get older (and I'm still relatively young) I observe that I keep remembering things that are wrong and sometimes I even base decisions on that outdated knowledge.
What is puzzling to me about this article is that it reads prima facie like a science piece, it is actually from the NYT opinion page. What are we supposed to conclude from that?
Get out of your comfort zone, pursue novelty.
I'm 45, I have all my hair.
In my 20s I taught myself the dvorak layout, In my 30s I learned mountain unicycling and guitar, in my 40s I learned to knit and play drums.
Learn new skills, stretch your body and your mind.
One day I'll learn how to use semicolons!
The science is already pretty clear about this. Learning new things creates new pathways through the brain. The harder the tasks, the better. Once we learn something deeply though it eventually becomes generalized and we go on auto pilot.
The good news is that learning new things makes us mentally and physically healthier. What did you learn today?
Good habits tend to feel good afterward. Bad habits feel good now. I find that thinking of my future self as a separate person that I can do nice things for helps me feel the long term benefits more.
I feel much better when working out than when lounging on a couch watching TV. The first feels lively and fun, the second makes me fidgety and annoyed.
Eating well gives me energy and lifts my spirits, eating crap makes me lethargic and bleurch.
The problem is that initial activation energy. It's easier to sit down than to put on workout clothes. Easier to grab a piece of chocolate than to cook a meal.
There are little tricks you can use to make the good habits easier and the bad habits hard. For instance, you'd have to go to a grocery store to get crap food if you craved it in my apartment. And TV watching happens only on a 13" laptop with bad speakers.
Little things go a long way.
Now I just gotta figure out how to make books easier than internet.
> Now I just gotta figure out how to make books easier than internet.
Get an outdated tablet that's WAAAAY too insecure for connecting to the internet (eg original Wifi iPad, set to airplane mode), and fill it with PDFs/epubs/etc of your choice.
Then, instead of jumping on the computer all the time, pull out the iPad somewhere away from the computer and read. eg in bed, outside on a balcony, etc
Doing exactly this works well for me, original iPad and everything. Theres No Way I'm going browse the web with that and get distracted, and I have all of the books I want with no buildup of useless physical book material. :D
Now I just gotta figure out how to make books easier than internet.
Keep a list of books you want to read. Buy a couple at a time. Keep your current book by your computer and/or bed. When you finish one, buy another so you always have books.
I'm already a super rager. According to this article, I may be a super ager as well, since trying hard at games to the point that I get frustrated and angry is what keeps me sharp!
Woah woah woah there. That doesn't follow at all. Even if you buy the "exercise model" - which can't possibly be tested by observing brain activity over minutes, since improvement would happen over weeks to months - that doesn't imply an ability to ward off old age over decades. In the case of literal muscle exercise, for example, playing pro sports will certainly strengthen your muscles now but likely cause long-term injuries. https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/public-healt...