New_Scientist_-_17_08_2019

26 | New Scientist | 17 August 2019

Editor’s pick

Take care when suggesting

people outsmart the brain

27 July, p 34

From Kate Marriott,

Falmouth, Cornwall, UK

Caroline Williams says that we are

more likely to make bad choices

when we are more stressed. She

positions this in the context of

choices we make about our health,

between behaviours geared

towards long-term goals, such as

eating vegetables and exercising,

and the short-term pleasures of

chocolate, beer and fun.

I would like to know how this

works for people with obsessive-

compulsive tendencies or restrictive

behaviours. I have observed in a

significant number of cases that

such people respond to stress not by

seeking easy thrills, but by following

their pleasure-denying, goal-

oriented behaviours more intensely.

Does stress produce a directly

opposite effect in these individuals?

Is this different response due to

genetics? Or is it learned?

Williams also assumes that the

majority will favour short-term

pleasures over healthy long-term

goals, and argues that we must

monitor ourselves. A rhetoric of

being “tricked” by our brains and

our bodies into being unhealthy

could be damaging to those unable

to allow themselves pleasures

because they are too focused on

long-term goals. Discourses around

restraint could have a significant

adverse effect on this minority.

Computational terms are

a lens in neuroscience

Letters, 13 July

From Sam Levy,

Somerville, Massachusetts, US

David Fitzgerald worries that the

frequency of computer terms in

neuroscience indicates a bias in

research methods. Rest assured

that most neuroscientists are

careful to make a distinction

between the models we use to

understand our data and the

metaphors we use to explain

our work to the general public.

For example, computationalism,

one philosophy for understanding

the mind, is today widely seen as

a “lens” to view the brain.

Party poopers should look

to their own helium waste

13 July, p 22

From Roger Whatmore, Milton

Keynes, Buckinghamshire, UK

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein’s lovely

article on the origins and scarcity

of terrestrial helium reminds me

of a tour I had, about five years

ago, around the chemistry lab of a

leading UK university. It had very

impressive, high-performance

nuclear magnetic resonance

machines. We asked our guide

whether the liquid helium in the

superconducting magnets in

these was recovered and recycled.

We were told that both the

university management and

funding agencies would rather pay

for the helium as a consumable

than invest in the kit needed to

recover it. A few months later,

a senior academic from that

department was interviewed and

took the opportunity to condemn

the use of helium in children’s

party balloons as a waste of a

valuable non-renewable resource.

He seemed oblivious to the irony.

Figures on the use of helium in

entertainment products vary, but

are a fraction of that consumed

by research and medicine.

In search of more

whispering in the wild

20 July, p 19

From Bruce Mullinax,

Great Falls, Virginia, US

You report that certain whales

whisper to their calves to avoid

alerting predators, and that

mother orangutans instruct their

offspring to move on with a loud

scratch (27 July, p 17). I wonder

how many other animals use

similar anti-predator tactics.

I know the deer around my

house produce a barely audible,

low-frequency moo to “talk” to

their fawns and to adults within

their social group. I think they use

it to rein in a hyperactive fawn that

has wandered too far. A mother

also uses it to call a fawn from its

nesting area after she has returned

from foraging and is ready to give

milk. I need to be pretty close to

hear the call. I assume the fawn’s

ears have evolved to detect the

sound from quite a distance.

Language could arise out

of the mouths of babies

4 May, p 34

From Chris Eve, Lynton, Devon, UK

David Robson presents several

ideas for how language might

have begun. There are two more

facts to consider.

Twin babies often create

languages. When left alone

together for long periods, they

spontaneously babble. This

acquires form and meaning and

becomes a private language –

usually abandoned as they learn

their parents’ tongue.

Secondly, only children are

really good at learning to speak

a language like a native speaker.

So isn’t it likely that children

created the first language? Many

of today’s hunter-gatherer

societies share childcare. Early

humans are likely to have done

the same, meaning several babies

might be left in the care of elders.

But any genetic mutation that

caused babies to babble would

alert predators to tender meals

and so would be selected out.

Views You r le t te r s