Slashdot Mirror
Those Eureka Moments
Phoe6 writes "If you're one of those insufferable people who can finish the Saturday New York Times crossword puzzle, you probably have a gift for insight. The puzzles always have an underlying hint to solving them, but on Saturdays that clue is insanely obtuse. If you had all day, you could try a zillion different combinations and eventually figure it out. But with insight, you'd experience the usual clueless confusion, until--voilà--the fog clears and you get the clue, which suddenly seems obvious. The sudden flash of insight that precedes such "Aha!" moments is characteristic of many types of cognitive processes besides problem-solving, including memory retrieval, language comprehension, and various forms of creativity. Although different problem-solving strategies share many common attributes, insight-derived solutions appear to be unique in several ways. PLoS Biology explains the Neural Basis of Solving Problems with Insight.
The Complete Research Article is here."
I used to have trouble with the JUMBLE puzzles, but then I went to jumble.org and I got major EUREKA moments...
Goddamn, there a lot of long words in that post, I didn't have my eureka moment for understanding what he was on about yet, but when I do, I'll post about it.
This is the sig that says NI (again)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I've found it!), but 'That's funny...'"
-Isaac Asimov.
This seems to be very much what Q was talking
:)
about in the very last episode "All Good Things...". When we learn something, we open ourselves up for more.
Someday hopefully we will learn everything.
I wrote a program that solves crossword puzzels because I was sick of losing to my younger brother. It helped but Saterdays have the obscure answers that weren't in my dictionary. Stupid New York.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
aren't there lots of clues in solving a crossword puzzle? :)
I find the best thing to do is walk away from the problem for a while - could be for a cup of coffee or you could sleep on it etc. Either you look at the problem again and you just see the answer, or you are brushing your teeth and you suddenly have the answer in your head! Don't ask me why.. IANABS (I Am Not A Brain Scientist!!)
When coding and gaming frenzy kicks in, we all know that personal hygeine suffers. The "You Reek!" moments happen at times like these.
you probably have a gift for insight. ... if you had all day, you could try a zillion different combinations and eventually figure it out. But with insight, you'd experience the usual clueless confusion, until--voilà--the fog clears and you get the clue, which suddenly seems obvious.
I'm sick of people thinking that they are so fscking "special". I don't necessarily accept the idea that someone has a very special way to solve very complex problems - the principles of the way we think is universal for all people.
Illustrating the strong emotional response elicited by such a sudden insight, Archimedes is said to have run home from the baths in euphoric glee--without his clothes.
But really, haven't we all done this at one time or another?
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
The puzzles always have an underlying hint to solving them, but on Saturdays that clue is insanely obtuse.
Saturday NYT puzzles frequently don't have themes.. That usually makes them harder.
From the article: In the first experiment, thirteen people were given three words (pine, crab, sauce) and asked to think of one word that would form a compound word or phrase for each of the words (can you figure it out?). Fish? Pine-fish, Crabfish, fish sauce?
I find it interesting that researchers are using the EEG to measure emotional response at an unconcious level. This is flawed in my opinion since an EEG can only measure electrical activity in the outside of the cerebral cortex (new cortex) while most emotional activity, and in particular memory management has been linked to the old cortex (and the hippocampus directly for memory storage). For those who don't know, the old cortex is covered by the cerebral cortex like a shell. The old cortex is basically a group of components that form the limbic system (includes structures like the hippocampus, the amygdala, basal ganglia, etc.) that connects to the diminutive midbrain through the thalamus and hypothalamus. For this reason the EEG which measures only surface electrical activity of the cerebral cortex can't determine the activity in the old cortex. One of the reasons that lie detectors tests work so well is that the cerebral cortex can override lesser functions (concious decisions, not unconcious ones) and the old cortex (with the thalamus in particular) controls the parasympathetic and sympathetic branches of the autonomic nervous system. If there is an emotional stimuli, this system responds unless overridden, and one of the effects is opening or closing of sweat glands. Doing so changes skin electrical resistance for the galvonic skin response part of the polygraph. Wouldn't this be a better test?
Sorry for the Amazon link, but it was easy to find there. Strangely, going through this book, especially if you don't resort to the hintws and answers in the back, helps develop just the sort of insight mentioned.
As always, your mileage may vary.
This is an interesting idea, and I'd been keen to believe it. But there are some severe methodological issues, first that subjects are pressing a button to indicate that they've solved the problem based on their phenomological experience. As far as I can tell from reading this bit, they could be picking up any of a variety of mental processes that have nothing to do with the insight experience. Most obviously, it could merely be the intent to push the button.
Hopefully the real experiment is more bulletproof than this fluff piece suggests.
Being someone who finds crossword puzzles hoplessly boring and one who ignores them religiously, I found the story pretty good. This actually is a important step in understanding the computational network of the brain and thus design structures for computers.
Projects like the DARPA Grand Challenge and others of great importance to us all rely on the dream that we will come up with "Artificial Intelligence" some day. The failures in such projects arise from their failure to reverse engineer the already well proved natural process.
Driving a vehicle for example is a proved process with known inputs and known outputs. It is reliable and we even know the failures in the process. The problem requires the understanding that all that needs to be done is to reverse engineer the natural processes involved. The study of the brain is part of this reverse engineering process. So for those Yawining out there, I hope the light just went on!
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
would be whether the cognitive and neural events that lead to insight are as sudden as the subjective experience.
trial and error. He meticulously recorded his findings for all the different filaments used in his experimental lightbulbs until he got to tungston.
All of his projects seemed to be directed that way.
good one, but you should have said "you reek of" moments
More interesting info on Mark Jung-Beeman's website.
Damn...even if I had mod points I can't decide....funny or insightful...
I would say that the potential for insight is the same in all humans but the ability we have for insight depends on how much we practice using it. It's like a muscle -- use it and it builds; stop using it and it deteriorates.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
I believe I get "No Shit" moments instead of that's funny.
Evolution or ID?
His predecessors at the Times wrote charming, witty and fun puzzles, filled with exactly what this article is about: eureka moments, moments of insight because of the double entendres or humorous literary references, etc.
And, Will Shortz is equally horrible on NPR. He just doesn't understand "fun": anagrams are not interesting unless there is a coincidence on the meaning side as well, and not an obvious one, but a witty one.
I wonder how this combines with the idea of a "Quantum Consciousness", as posted on /. a few years back. Hameroff's work is pretty interesting , and I've got to say pretty enticing. You can check it out HERE.
-JT
Subjects pressed a button to indicate whether they had solved the problem using insight, which they had been told leads to an Aha! experience characterized by suddenness and obviousness.
So really, how would one solve a word problem without insight? Did any of the participants solve it by writing a dictionary searching algorithm into their PDA? Did they open a dictionary and start checking answers systematically? ("Bart, Cart, Dart, Eart... Nope, can't see any problem with that!")
In my own experience it just seems like it's the obscurity of the answer that makes it seem insightful or not. If I had read the three words and instantly known the answer I don't think I would have felt the Aha! moment that I felt after staring at it for a minute. So am I less insightful if I solve it faster?
pineapple, crabapple applesauce
did any1 come up with the answer to pine , crab sauce thing..
I think that box or nut might work, but none of those strike me as a eureka kinda word. nither of those say DoH! I can't belive I didn't see that.
Neither of us is exactly "standard" neurologically; I am autistic and tend to think in visual metaphor (see "Self-Awareness" at this site for examples...
I'll admit, I've only regularly done the NYTimes crossword for a little over a year (I decided it would be a good exercise), so I may not have the best historical framework here. However, I think there are often excellent 'eureeka' moments, particularly on Thursday (where there is a trick to how certain boxes can be filled in, for example a single box meaning 'ying' horizontally and 'yang' vertically, as opposed to normal days were the clue is just a hint). I'll grant you, Saturdays are a bitch, but I still have those "Aha!" moments while working on them.
Speaking of which, its time for breakfast and a paper...
"Stumble before you crawl"
Epiphany
One would have thought one with a decent vocabulary would have known the word for it rather than 'a eureka moment'.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I wonder if the "Eureka" moment I had when I read your answer is the same as if I'd figured it out myself?
-- Pot is safer than Beer
Apple :)
Sorry I forgot this is slashdot - Article reading's not a strong point.
So, they did a study...just to tell me that insightful people are going to finish a crossword puzzle faster?? who diddn't know this already?
I often have Akerue! moments.
Those are when you knew something, but suddenly, it's gone, and you can't for the life of you remember. I hate those.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
Eureka moments require a few different things to happen in order to bring them about. First, it requires an attempt to solve the puzzle in linear fashion, setting up the problem in mind and at least someplace to start in approaching it.
Next, an incubation period, where you go and do something else, or stare into space and 'woolgather,' that fuzzy day-dream-like state in which you actually start organising thoughts, although it may not feel like it. The three Bs come into play here- bed, bath, and bus- the three likeliest placest to have a eureka moment, because those are incubatory periods, in which your brain starts approaching the puzzle from different angles.
There are other good places- i find washing dishes helps, it's an activity that lets my mind wander and it's always been a quiet spot in the day after dinner. I know someone who goes for long walks.
Sleeping on a problem really does help, partly because the brain trains during sleep, and you'll wake up better at the problem-solving activities because your brain has run through them in sleep. It may not solve abstract problems, but it at least helps with concrete skills, so who's to say it doesn't help with abstract thinking abilities as well?
Beyond that, all i can think is... what kind of eureka moment results in... an article about eureka moments??
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
I didn't get what is Insight. AFAIK, it was a new age crap.
DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
Awww....beaten to it by an AC :o)
Correct sah...well, that's what I reckon it is anyway.
Crabapple
:o) For that reason...
Pineapple
Applesauce
Those are all compound words according to reference.com, personally I think "apple sauce" should be two words, but what do I know?
What are:
pine white or white pine?
crab white or white crab?
White sauce I can see...but unless you're describing a pine and a crab as being white, they're meaningless, you may as well replace white with any colour. Unless I'm missing something...
That is where I do my crosswords.
In fact, I am thinking of moving my office.
However, I think there are often excellent 'eureeka' moments, particularly on Thursday
I have to agree with you on this one. Did you do the April 1 puzzle this year?
Certainly not every puzzle is going to be a work of art, but as far as crosswords in the US go I'd have to rank the NYT at or near the top of the list.
For all of the puzzle fanatics out there, let me recommend the geek-fest that is the American Crossword Puzzle tournament, held annually in Stamford, Connecticut (pretty close to NYC). The focus of the event is a series of timed puzzles judged on accuracy and speed. There are also a number of side events and other activities for word puzzle fans. I finished in the top third this year.. Woo hoo!
I think I'm going to stick with my initial thought, that the answer is "y", the spanish word meaning "and".
Think about it -- piney, crabby, saucy!
Oooh - saucy...
And RMS *of course* is 100% sure the answer is "GNU/" but I still like mine better.
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
"Just as the eye percieves colours and the ear sounds,
so thinking percieves ideas; it is an organ of perception. "
(Goethean Science)
| THE SUDDEN FLASH OF INSIGHT OCCURS WHEN solvers engage distinct
| neural and cognitive processes that allow them to see connections
| that previously eluded them.
maybe its the other way around -- perhaps the distinct neural
processes occur when one has the flash of insight.
(but anyone who starts with the kantian presuppositions
must reject that idea).
regards,
john
What is the common word between pine, crab, and sauce? (RTFA if you don't know what I mean)
In the shower, on the toilet, walking up the stairs, driving to work, almost anyplace but at my keyboard.
This is where I solve the really tough problems.
The simple stuff is what I do every day. The tougher problems like the large scale designs and unique solutions for unique problems rarely get solved while I am at work.
I think about the big problems for hours or days and the solution finally comes to me.
The only downside of solving problems in the shower, is that I am doing it on my time and the boss doesn't pay me for that.
That is why I NEVER feel guilty about slahdotting at work.
I live the greatest adventure anyone could wish for. -Tosk the Hunted
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
As you said, thats why I needed the program (bah).
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
cragen
I know I'm just echoing the AC, but I'm going to bull through anyway :) I have a math degree, and I had a lot of eureka classes. You were taking the wrong ones. In fact, it seems to me you would have to go out of your way to take math classes that were grind instead of eureka.
Differentiation (basic calculus) is a grind. You learn a few simple rules and apply them. Integration, beyond the most basic, is all eureka. You learn a few rules, but they all require insight into how to rearrange the thing you're integrating so it fits a pattern.
My favorite classes were about proofs. A proof is all eureka. A proof is a series of simple, basic steps that takes you from the given to the thing you're trying to prove. However, finding which basic steps go together to get what you want is all eureka. Many times in graduate level math courses I would work on a problem until midnight, go to sleep, wake up at 3am with the solution to the problem, write it down, & finish the problem in the morning. The interesting thing to me about proofs is that virtually always the way to prove the answer you want is to prove something much, much more powerful, of which the answer you want is a minor subset. It's as if your engineering teacher tells you to design a power source that can provide 1.5 volts for a day, and the easiest way you can find to do it is to build a Mr. Fusion. For example, to prove that all groups with 113 members are really the same group with different names for the elements, the easiest way is to prove that all groups with a prime number of elements hold that quality.
"If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once
with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found
the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory
and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labour. "
(Nikola Tesla, New York Times, October 19, 1931)
nut crab
nut sauce
I'm sure this isn't the "correct" answer, since nut crabs arn't extraordinarily well known. But it is the first answer I thought of. There's another answer that also grows on trees. How many answers can we come up with?
I've done some old puzzles edited by Will Weng, and I've done a *ton* edited by Will Shortz. To me, there is no comparison. Will has really encouraged his constructors to have fun with their themes, and to creatively "break the rules" when it serves to create an "aha!" or "that's neat!" moment.
where there is a trick to how certain boxes can be filled in, for example a single box meaning 'ying' horizontally and 'yang' vertically
Awesome that you should mention this. The two authors of this puzzle are/were students in my research group (one graduated), and I think this is one of the best themes I've ever seen. I will mention your post to them!
We are given three discrete states of cognition by nature:
Sleeping so deeply there are no dreams (delta or deeper)
Sleeping with dreams (alpha, beta state)
Eyes-open sleep (ordinary waking)
But we can have several others:
Observation and info-gathering (adult ego-state)
Understanding and compassion (unnamed by science)
Insight (unnamed by science)
Oneness with God
The fourth and later stages of consciousness usually are unpredictable and come and go by mood.
The first three stages are culturally-defined and mandated, and the later stages are spoken of in metaphor by mystics, as language is incompetent to describe them.
Eastern religious practices (yoga, zen, t'ai chi) are curricula for attaining these states.
In Christianity, Insight is called "The Holy Spirit (or Ghost)." Anyone who has had an insight can remember wanting to sing, dance, shout, tell the world -- this is a religious experience that even scientists can share.
In fact, science has another vector of similarity with religions: The scientific method (do it and see what happens) is exactly as useful as faith (I'll do it because I know God wants it done.)
--
We are not humans in search of the spiritual, we are spirits out to experience the truly human.
The rule breaking and "aha" moments in a Shortz puzzle are all of the nature of the mechanics of the little boxes and letters, they're all in the puzzle. There are no bilingual puns, or literary or show-biz references, there is no "higher plane". You may not experience the "i'm in the know" moments in a Weng puzzle because you might not be in the know, but for people in the know, a Shortz puzzle just seems dry and mechanical
epiphany
n. pl. epiphanies
A comprehension or perception of reality by means of a sudden intuitive realization: "I experienced an epiphany, a spiritual flash that would change the way I viewed myself" (Frank Maier).
Just another day in Paradise
"but on Saturdays that clue is insanely obtuse."
Of course, Phoe6 meant "that clue is insanely abstruse. Unless the clue on saturdays is, in fact, insanely dumb. Seems to be a common mistake lately, I even saw Jon Stewart mix it up on The Daily Show. Wouldn't have said anything if the posting weren't in reference to a crossword. But what do I know? I can never get the stupid thing on Saturdays.
| THE SUDDEN FLASH OF INSIGHT OCCURS WHEN solvers engage distinct
| neural and cognitive processes that allow them to see connections
| that previously eluded them.
maybe its the other way around -- perhaps the distinct neural
processes occur when one has the flash of insight.
That's my take, too. My impression is that the processing takes place for some time (and the mechanism is not wired for introspection of its operation, so you're largely unaware of it), producing one type of activity. Then, if a solution is recognized, there's a burst of another type of activity as the recognition is collected, checked, finalized, and/or propagated to other parts of the brain.
This seems to square with the MRI showing increased activity once the problem is given, but the EEG showing a characteristic burst of high-frequency noise just before the "AHA" is reported. Perhaps it's fair to interpret the MRI as seeing the first activity, and the EEG capturing the second.
A subjective and anaecdotal item: I get the impression that the (hypothetically pattern-matching) mechanism can call on other parts of the brain - more logical and more susceptable to introspection - at intermediate steps of the problem solving. For instance, about halfway to the solution of the "pine, crab, sauce" puzzle I remember thinking that they all looked food related and that the search should focus on food-related words. This step didn't seem to generate a full "aha", but it didn't follow from logic either. So perhaps a preliminary report of a potential weak correlation was reported out for logical checking and a "looks good, pursue it further" signal went back.
That might imply that the "aha" burst involves a rapid set of confirmations of fit on different parts of the proposed solution.
I've long thought of the thinking process as involving a world-model-building mechanism that includs pattern matcher(s) that hunt for connections and correlations, often finding false-positives, plus (hypothetically more sequential) checking process(es) that test the new correlations against the model and discard them as false or rearrange the model if they are accepted (possibly discarding previously accepted matches) - with pattern-matching assist to identify where checking should occur. Perhaps these results could put some rivets into such a model.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
For the uninitiated, here's an excellent article from the Guardian describing what it's all about.
The Guardian also had an article on how these things seem to be popular only in cricket-playing parts of the world (Britain, Australia/New Zealand, the Indian subcontinent, the Caribbean, South Africa). Both pastimes take forever to complete (but the pleasure is in the process of playing rather than in the end result), both involve arcane rules that seem incomprehensible to the uninitiated, both depend heavily on convention and gentlemanly conduct. The link is subscriber-only, though.
Thank you so much for your understanding!
When the insights come fast enough, the AHAs join together into one long AHA!aha,aha,ahahahahahahahahahah...
So to be both insightful AND funny is the best compliment I could have hoped for.
Glad you liked it.
--
The Universe and the psyche are identical, except they're folded differently.
Look at how some people find picking up new [non-computer] languages really easy, and other people of similar apparent intelligence seem to have a complete inability do this.
I took a "Psych of Language Acquisition" course in college, back in the '60s - while trying to complete a language distribution requirement, hoping it would give me pointers. Instead it hexed me.
The theory at the time was that there were certain "critical periods" in brain development, for different aspects of language acquisition (phonemes, grammar, etc.), before which acquisition of that aspect was easy, after which it was darned near impossible. Having transferred from engineering (which didn't require language) to computer science (which in those days was under "math" in "Liberal Sciences and Arts", and thus DID require a language), I was starting language acquisition late - and was thus just past the last of the "critical periods" of the theory.
I had that class the hour immediately before the German class. So (regardless of the accuracy of the theory) I had to go straight from the class where I had to BELIEVE that theory (so I could reason from it to respond quickly to problem questions) to the one where I had to do what it said was impossible. Needless to say I didn't do well in German that term.
Later I found out that some big-name anthropoligists said that the theory was bunk. Later the theory was revised to state that if you learned the relevant aspect of a SECOND language before the critical period you were able to learn that aspect of more languages afterward. And the underlying mechanism of one of the hypothetical critical periods - phoneme acquisition - is now beleived to involve the death of neurons that are not used by the phonemes of the language learned. (So to learn another after the critical period you have to grow new neurons or retarget those you are using for other purposes, rather than simply preserve existing neurons that do the right job. Those who learn a second language early would thus preserve more of the nerves and their functions - including perhaps some responsible for keeping languages separate.)
So by this new model, people who learn a second language early and/or people who have exceptional nerve growth abilities would be able to learn languages later in life.
That would correlate to some extent with my experience: As an young child I "talked to cats" - mimicing their body language and agonistic noises in context. Learning German I discovered that I could easily make the labial fricative and uvular trill - which are not in English but which I had used for "hiss" and "purr" in my childhood experiments - but had the same trouble with the labial trill as other native English speakers.
So it would be interesting to know:
- How old you were on your bike ride.
- Whether you learned one or more than one language as a child.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The Einstein Factor
One of the many, many topics in the book is just as the summary is like - leave a problem for awhile and your subconcious figures it out while your concious is doing something else. (no, I didn't RTFA, and I'm too lazy to sign up for a slashdot account, but I saw the article, skimmed the comments, and when I didn't see this book mentioned, I figured I'd share..)
Very good book, by the way. I've not tried the techniques in there, but I've heard they're pretty powerful.
Teaching a subject not only forces you to know your stuff and revisit the fundmentals, but you are asked fundmental questions you wouldn't normally think of.
I think explaining your work is similar: to explain it, you have to start with the fundamentals which you normally wouldn't revisit when trying to solve a higher problem.
And indeed, if you were to look through his writing (yes, I know where I am posting this) you would have seen that he actively pursued those elusive moments of inspirations, that part that was the one percent that led to 99 percent hard work following up on that one percent.
The story goes that his technique (or at least one of then) was to sit down and relax with a pencil in hand, waiting for it to drop, and when then suddenly waking up from half-sleep, try to remember as much as possible he was thinking of.
So, please try to accept there can be a both rather than an either-or.
One thing this article doesn't mention is that it turns out that your aptitude for "insight" is directly correlated with your ability on pereception-related problems.
:)
For example, people who do well on Where's Waldo-type problems will tend to do well on seemingly unrelated insight problems (like NYTimes crossword puzzles
This is also true for people who are really good at flipping the Necker cube.
If anyone is interested, this is from two studies done by Schooler in the 1990's. The article here actually references those two:
Schooler JW, Melcher J (1997) The ineffability of insight. In: Smith SM, Ward TB, Finke RA, editors. The creative cognition approach. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. 97-133.
Schooler JW, Ohlsson S, Brooks K (1993) Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. J Exp Psychol Gen 122: 166-183. Find this article online
Also, tv doesn't help, neither do all those bad things that all the religions talk about, they seem to diminish the trust that the insightful part of you has in your concious.
So I would go out for a smoke. I would have the intention of continuing to try to solve the problem. I wasn't just taking (yet another) break, I was trying to change my surroundings...
But, by the time I had finished the cigarette, I realized that I had gotten distracted much earlier and had, in fact, spent the time day dreaming. (I should probably stress, at this point, that I am, in fact, talking about tobacco - Drum from Holand (not that crap they put in commercial cigerettes)).
Then, as I walked back towards the door, I would realize that I knew the right way to look at the problem and that the best solution was obvious.
Companies that want to increase creativity and problem-solving skills should begin "Start Smoking" programs. (Manditory only for new-hires, or course.)
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
This has got to be a troll. Lie detectors don't work.
...yes, and the same moments trying to remember the name of the band that sings "True" (Spandau Ballet), when you remember it hours or days later.
Douglas Hofstadter seems to hit on it much more so than most AI/CogSci people, in "Metamagical Themas" and some of his newer books.
On the surface of our self-awareness, we see our thought processes as simple and "obvious". But underneath, there is a lot of diffuse processing going on that few people try to model. They try to model the surface, with Expert Systems, and other programs that seem to make their own cognitive connections (but really don't).
Much like our concepts of the various processes that are running in a simple cell tend to think of things as just a bunch of discrete assembly lines, they really are much more complicated and nebulous than that.
Now, it appears that not only are glia involved in neural processes, but prions might also be, too. Just like "junk" codons in cellular DNA might not be "junk", either. A difference in how or when that strand of DNA is run through RNA and expressed, it could have negative results for the cell or organism.
Ah, thank you!
I was thinking about the fact that I couldn't come up with the answer to this particular riddle, and I guess that is because english is only my second language (I am quite good at solving swedish crosswords, for example). What I wonder is. would the anterior superior temporal gyrus (aSTG) be involved in the same way, even for me - solving a problem in a non-native language?
Although interesting, i find this ridiculous. The crossword puzzle is solved either through association (introverts are very good at memory retrieval via association) or intuition, the "N" in the MBTI. The Aha! moment that comes from this is a feeling of superiority. At first the problem was unsolvable, and now it is solvable. Given this pleasure increases when oithers are said to have not gotten it (such as saying it is a "hard" question), the pleasure comes from superiority over others, and not from the actual insight. This is the feeding of the ego, and a mature person is much less affected.
There is a second form of pleasure one gets from a so-called insight, but that is not related. It is when the problem seems complex (i.e. cannot be easily solved with one breakdown of the question) and yet a simple principle explains it. That a _simple_ thing explained a _complex_ thing seems contradictory, and that contradiction is the basis of humor. However, this pleasure again has nothing to do with the insight, rather with the inherent humor of the situation.
There is a final pleasure associated with insight, and that is when one uses his favored function (Jung identified four) in a more complex manner. So, the introverted thinkers (INTP and ISTP) get this pleasure from applying logic, the introverted feelers (INFP and ISFP) from applying feelings and harmony, introverted sensors (ISTJ and ISFJ) from sensory impressions, and introverted intuitives (INTJ and INFJ) from intuition. This is mostly for introverts as they apply--and get get pleasure from applying--their special capabilities to the inner world of ideas rather than the outer world of people and things. It would follow though, that it is the introverted intutives that get the greatest pleasure from problem-solving insight, as they enjoy closing the issue (the compensatory judging function that deals with the outer world wants to close the issue) and they trust their intuitions for problem solving more than anyone else.
It is sad that this article completely ignored the century-old psycological data on the matter,
Have you read my journal today?