Easily Distracted People May Have 'Too Much Brain'

fysdt writes with this excerpt from New Scientist: "Those who are easily distracted from the task in hand may have 'too much brain.' So says Ryota Kanai and his colleagues at University College London, who found larger than average volumes of grey matter in certain brain regions in those whose attention is readily diverted. To investigate distractibility, the team compared the brains of easy and difficult-to-distract individuals. [Abstract] They assessed each person's distractibility by quizzing them about how often they fail to notice road signs, or go into a supermarket and become sidetracked to the point that they forget what they came in to buy. The most distractible individuals received the highest score."

Comments

Flamebait Summary

[TaoPhoenix]

With only a brief glance at TFA this is a Flamebait summary.

It's the age-old distinction between a low-grade machine that is resistant to abuse and a high-grade machine that is vulnerable to abuse.

The summary unfairly rewards low-grade abuse-resistant machines/brains.

Re:Flamebait Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary unfairly rewards low-grade abuse-resistant machines/brains.

It should've been "Focused, Productive People May Have 'Not Enough Brain'.

BTW:

FIRST POST!

Re:Flamebait Summary

[somersault]

Hah, indeed. I used to not notice my teacher calling my name in early primary school because I was so focused on my schoolwork. She encouragingly gave me the nickname "cloth ears". I can still be oblivious to things happening around me when I'm focused, though I am more likely to notice if someone says my name at least. I'd rather be able to focus like that than have everything distract me. Especially if I'm reading a book at home or something like that.

I was working in a busy office for the last couple of years with people often trying to get my attention, and my ability to focus on work dropped drastically even when they were being quiet. Now that I'm in a quieter office, things are improving again, because I'm no longer anticipating distractions.

With stuff like observing road signs, you can train yourself to be more attentive to them too. There's not that much point reading them every time on roads you know well, though being aware of possible new signs is useful.

Re:Flamebait Summary

[hyperquantization]

The summary unfairly rewards low-grade abuse-resistant machines/brains.

It should've been "Focused, Productive People May Have 'Not Enough Brain'.

The article reconciles what you see as a discrepancy with the line:

...the brain's grey matter is pruned of neurons in order to work more efficiently.

He suggests that a greater volume of grey matter may indicate a less mature brain, perhaps reflecting a mild developmental malfunction.

Re:Flamebait Summary

[Strange Ranger]

That's not a reconciliation. That's an unfair theory that assumes the extra grey matter is unwanted. He could just as easily theorize that "Some mechanism is helping these brains keep more of their flexibility and childlike wonder and curiosity." OR "This extra grey matter might allow mature brains to better function in a chaotic environment, whereas a normal adult brain tends to get "flustered" when routines change."

  Of course I just made all that up, but you get the point. He begins his theory-making by assuming part of the brain is unwanted. Try again without the bias buddy.

Re:Flamebait Summary

[Austerity Empowers]

It should've been "Focused, Productive

Oooh, Shiny!

Re:Flamebait Summary

[jd]

This is something that has been known for a very long time. The NAGC (National Association for Gifted Children) was pretty much founded on the premise that intelligent kids become disruptive in schools because they're bored witless (ie: become easily distracted) with the humdrum that is necessary for everyone else.

What this article (and summary) should be focussing on is not the fact that intelligent people can be distracted but on why society is under-utilizing their capabilities to such an extent that boredom is possible. Once a problem has been identified and a solution worked on for a specific sector (in this case kids) for 4 decades or more, it is surely not acceptable for the problem to be allowed to fester in all other parts of society. It is surely even less acceptable for researchers to not be aware that solutions already exist but aren't being used.

Re:Flamebait Summary

[ardle]

What this article (and summary) should be focussing on is not the fact that intelligent people can be distracted but on why society is under-utilizing their capabilities to such an extent that boredom is possible

Society under-utilizes gifted people because otherwise gifted people would become some kind of "elite" ;-)

Re:Flamebait Summary

[Jaime2]

The article doesn't say that more intelligent people are more easily distracted. It says that a specific region of the brain has more grey matter in children than in adults. When some adults fail to prune the extra grey matter, they tend be more more easily distracted than those who develop normally.

Re:Flamebait Summary

[Low Ranked Craig]

Society for the most part has always punished intelligent people unless that intelligence is coupled with wealth or power.

Re:Flamebait Summary

[Kjella]

This is something that has been known for a very long time. The NAGC (National Association for Gifted Children) was pretty much founded on the premise that intelligent kids become disruptive in schools because they're bored witless (ie: become easily distracted) with the humdrum that is necessary for everyone else.

A bored mind is an easily distracted mind, that you really don't need a scientist to tell you. But if you gave them challenges relative to their intelligence or a different kind of challenge where intelligence wouldn't matter much, are the intelligent more easily distracted than the others? The answer to that is not obvious.

Re:Flamebait Summary

[hyperquantization]

That's not bias. It's called context and the Scientific Method: the theory that the article is basing its conclusions off is as the article states. Our understanding of the human brain is rather pitiful, so claiming a theory here as "unfair" is unfair to the theory itself.

Don't assume bias simply because a theoretical conclusion that is made doesn't agree with your own hypotheses. Science is full of opinions that evolve and shift, and this may be no exception. However, taking insult based upon a theory is exactly what ruins Science as a field; ignoring models because they violate "political correctness" is just bad Science. Maybe PC needs to step it up and join ranks for a paradigm shift.

Re:Flamebait Summary

[Daniel Phillips]

The article doesn't say that more intelligent people are more easily distracted. It says that a specific region of the brain has more grey matter in children than in adults. When some adults fail to prune the extra grey matter, they tend be more more easily distracted than those who develop normally.

To paraphrase: if your brain doesn't rot in the usual way, you won't become a perfect cog.

Re:Flamebait Summary

[grcumb]

Society under-utilizes gifted people because otherwise gifted people would become some kind of "elite" ;-)

Elite has everything to do with privilege and nothing whatsoever to do with being gifted (in the sense of higher intelligence, anyway).

I went to high school in a neighbourhood that had one of my city's most elite neighbourhoods on one side and a working class ghetto (home to a number of mafia families and one motorcycle gang) on the other. The 'elite' students were better fed, better dressed, better spoken and better behaved, for the most part, but if they were smarter, they hid it well.

Education and opportunity may give you a head start in life, but don't for a second try to pretend that these advantages somehow make you smarter or better than anyone else. Harvard may demand you work at a higher level, but its cachet is that you can make friends with rich people, and with luck some of that rich will rub off on you.

The highly intelligent are usually the opposite of elite: They are so caught up with ideas, and so desperate for the company of people who actually understand them, that they are willing to overlook most of the social markers (accent, clothing, income, residence) that most people use to grade each other.

Whenever I hear the term 'intellectual elite', I wonder if such a thing is even possible, because anyone stupid enough to hang that term on a group has to be lying.

Re:Flamebait Summary

[Jaime2]

Of course that's because formation and/or elimination of synapses is the perfect definition of "brain rot", rather than a normal part of maturing, and the ability to pay attention is strongly correlated with being a "perfect cog". If anything, I'd say the opposite is true; easily distracted people should be far more pliable than those who have the ability to focus their attention on something.

It's interesting how many people react emotionally to this article. It looks to me like pretty boring science that may someday help in diagnosing a particular form of ADHD. However, a lot of people seem to want to link the "too much brain" statement to intelligence (the article literally meant grey matter volume in one region of the brain, not intelligence).

Re:Flamebait Summary

[d3ac0n]

And Slashdotters wonder why so many of them can't get/keep women.

There's a word for people who continually pick at other people's statements regardless of whether they agree with them or not: "Asshole".

(Note: I am NOT calling you an asshole. Just saying that people will frequently think that of those who are constantly contrary.)

My suggestion? Leave the logic picking for Debate class. Some of us just want to have a conversation that doesn't devolve into arguments over pointless minutiae.

Re:Flamebait Summary

[cyberchondriac]

I've always sort of equated "intellectual elite" with "pseudo-intellectual". After all, the smarter someone really is, the more they should realize how little they actually know compared with how much there is to know. Even a rocket scientist can't do brain surgery and a neurosurgeon isn't likely to successfully design a working rocket.
Keyword though is "should".. there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom.

great excuse

[roman_mir]

Wonderful excuse - my brain, it's just too big, that's why I can't concentrate on anything, the tasks are too small and insignificant, what can you do? Get me a real problem to solve - like world peace or something, then maybe it'll keep me focused for a while.

Re:great excuse

[roman_mir]

What do you mean 'women works'? It's easy, all you do is take one apart, so that it stops working (if it ever had previously) and then you put it back together piece by piece, until it restarts. Narrow down to the precise moment that makes her work again, and you are half way there, from then on it's trivial.

Re:great excuse

[tsa]

World peace is a theoretically simple problem, It only requires people to be friendly to each other. I was gonna post a real problem but I was distracted by a butterfly.

Re:great excuse

[roman_mir]

I can be totally friendly with you while still waging a war against you to take your resources, try again.

Re:great excuse

[roman_mir]

Oh, that's not a contradiction at all, it's been done all the time. People behave in a totally friendly manner (and if all you have to judge by is the behavior, then you can't really conclude it's unfriendly,) while preparing a knife behind their back.

Re:great excuse

[roman_mir]

Yeah, and some times they are your spouses or your colleagues at work or your boss or your neighbor or anybody, where do you think politicians come from? Space?

Excuses

[Usually Unlucky]

This is what I will be telling my boss from now on

ADD in the modern era

[DigiShaman]

Evolutionary speaking, having ADD would be a fantastic asset to have. It would allow to be more in-tuned with your environment for survival. The acute ability to become the hunter rather than the hunted. Now, having ADD in the office is a disability. It sucks :(

High as fuck

[MrQuacker]

or go into a supermarket and become sidetracked to the point that they forget what they came in to buy

Smoke a few bowls, and you too can forget what you went into the supermarket to get.

Re:High as fuck

[L4t3r4lu5]

As I understand it, however, higher brain function remains unaffected. It's a simple process:

- I am in a supermarket.
- I am high, and hungry.
- Supermarkets sell a wide variety of savoury and sweet snacks.
- I am here to buy savoury and sweet snacks.
- Absolutely £20 of Doritto's and chocolate Hobnobs doesn't look suspicious! That clerk is just giggling at a funny joke... Maybe... Oh crap he knows... Maaaaaaan that security guard is watching me! I probably reek of the stuff! Act cool man, act cool... Grab a pack of gum from the end of the counter, it's all good... CRAP go back and pay for the gum. Say "Goodnight" on the way out to that total stranger, that's the normal thing to do...

Re:I must be a genius

[DJRumpy]

Squirrel!

Re:And...?

[jd]

The practical application, IMHO, is for society to utilize intelligent people more for tasks that demand high intelligence. Distractability == boredom. In the Age of Enlightenment, this involved funding the highly intelligent to go make use of that intelligence. In the modern era, serious research is often confined to those who stay in academia - and, even then, with universities increasingly funded by corporations to perform all the menial work, the condition of research is pathetic.

What we need are dedicated facilities for the highly intelligent to push them to the limits of their mental capacity, funded not to produce specific results but to see what happens. "Blue sky" from an outside perspective, but not necessarily to the researchers themselves who would be free to do what they wanted. I absolutely guarantee the rewards of such a venture for society would vastly outstrip the costs, and the rewards for the intelligent to be in a meaningful environment rather than a mundane one would be beyond price.

Cannabis increases brain size!

[RKBA]

Marijuana must truly be a "mind expanding" drug then, because the more stoned I am the more easily distracted and forgetful I am. :-|

Looks like maybe bad science

[DoctorNathaniel]

Apparently my cheap-ass university doesn't have download rights to the original article in Neuroscience, but my guess is that the weak point is in the paper-and-pencil questionarre. The problem is that they aren't asking people how often they get distracted... they're asking people how often they _remember_ getting distracted.

An equally valid hypothesis is that big-brained people remember getting distracted more than small-brained people.

Again, I haven't RTFA so maybe they deal with it. They talk about inheritability of the 'distraction' scores, but that just means that it's something either genetic or social. In fact, there could instead be a correlation between 'big brained' and 'more honest'.

Re:ADHD

[Locke2005]

Actually, ADHD is normal. It would be required to survive in a jungle environment, where virtually anything could be a threat to you, so you need to keep flitting your attention from one thing to another to survive. The ability to stay focused on one thing to the exclusion of all others for a significant period of time is a relatively recent development in humans which is only useful in an academic environment where what you learn and when you learn it is dictated by others. In an ideal society, it shouldn't be necessary for everyone to have exactly the same executive function capabilities.

Re:And...?

[Cassander]

What we need are dedicated facilities for the highly intelligent to push them to the limits of their mental capacity, funded not to produce specific results but to see what happens.

You mean like google?

Re:ADHD

[hey!]

Actually, people with ADHD often have *above* normal ability to focus on one thing to the exclusion of all others for a significant period of time. It's called "hyperfocus". That ability has many advantages, but that *propensity* has serious disadvantages as they fail to switch tasks at the appropriate time.

ADHD is not really about a deficit of *attention*. It's about a lack of voluntary control over attention. Imagine you are starving. You'd have a hard time concentrating on a tedious task if there was food nearby. ADHD brains behave like they're starved for stimulation. They have a hard time sticking to a boring task when a more stimulating one is at hand. That's why stimulant medication helps; they take the edge off a brain's hunger for stimulation so its owner can choose what he wants to use the brain for.

But it is absolutely true that ADHD is part of the normal behavioral spectrum for our species. In primitive societies, people at the ADHD end of the spectrum were good at the vital high stimulation tasks the group needed performed. Things that involved seeking novelty or tolerating danger. In frightening situations it's the people on the non-ADHD end of the scale that have difficulty focusing. People with ADHD can often perform better. In fact for some of those people high stress situations may be the only ones where they feel "normal". That's why people with untreated ADHD can develop the habit of seeking out conflict, or letting problems build to near crisis levels. Those people are misplaced in their work, but in the modern economy it may be hard for them to find a suitable place for their talents.