Jump to content

Triune brain: Pseudoscience or still a credible model?


Recommended Posts

Two links:

 

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain

2) http://www.whatonearthishappening.com/part-1-the-solution/65-the-triune-brain

 

Another link that may not be so relevant:

 

3) http://mybrainnotes.com/memory-brain-stress.html

 

Pseudoscience or still a credible model?

 

From what I recall of my neuroscience, phil, and psych classes, the brain really focuses a lot on learning and conditioning, which then turns over into neural changes. I think the triune brain theory is interesting. However, MRIs give a different story in relation to the theory: MRI technology and research developed well beyond the theory.

 

 

According to Wikipedia,

 

While technically inaccurate as an explanation for brain activity, it remains one of very few approximations of the truth we have to work with: the "neocortex" represents that cluster of brain structures involved in advanced cognition, including planning, modeling and simulation; the "limbic brain" refers to those brain structures, wherever located, associated with social and nurturing behaviors, mutual reciprocity, and other behaviors and affects that arose during the age of the mammals; and the "reptilian brain" refers to those brain structures related to territoriality, ritual behavior and other "reptile" behaviors. The broad explanatory value makes this approximation very engaging and is a useful level of complexity for high school students to begin engaging with brain research.

 

 

Ok, so there were no sources for that comment.

 

Here's what I'm thinking.

 

1. Evolution-wise, it's got some stuff to say. However, I'm not seeing enough animal models for comparison to the triune brain theory. There isn't enough "deep homology" discussion for me to find believability in the model. The field of developmental neurobiology has grown since the triune brain theory was developed. However, I don't know what current developmental neurobiologists think of the triune brain theory.

 

2. I'm not too sure about the whole "emotions" thing. From a radical behaviorist view, I think the triune brain theory is non-sense, because of how brain plasticity and learning-and-conditioning occurs. It appears to allege that emotional knowledge is inherit. I once came across an argument that the act of smiling is inherit (I can't recall the source). Here is one: http://www.doctortipster.com/6920-smiling-is-an-inherited-behavior-that-begins-in-the-womb.html

 

3. Alleging that the neo-cortex is responsible for calculations seems to be legit, for what I recall of MRI studies.

 

More links:

- http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=3505872_fpsyg-03-00516-g002&req=4

Edited by Genecks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a case of false equivalence. Just because a model is not up to date or accurate to a certain degree it is not necessarily pseudoscience.

The model is a simplified narrative that can be useful to put things into a somewhat historical context (a bit like stating that mitochondria are the power station of the cell, for example). It is certainly inaccurate in terms of what we know to do and it is not a useful model for predictions or further inferences. It has more a place in psychology than in neuroanatomy and is certainly not being used for the latter much, anymore (I am not sure whether it has been at all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, deep homology was the aspect that made me believe the model would continue to have credence or eventually go into falsification. I think I read something on neurodojo about it:

 

neurodojo: http://neurodojo.blogspot.com/2009/10/humans-do-not-have-reptile-brains.html

 

link to deep homology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_homology

 

Let me tear apart what I don't like about the neurodojo thing:

 

It’s debatable whether reptiles are the ancestors of mammals, however. It may be that the two groups shared a common ancestor, then diverged. It's also somewhat misleading in that it lumps all reptiles together. Snakes, for instance, appear much later in the fossil record than the earliest mammals.

Second, the suggestion that the entire reptile brain is essentially the mammalian hind brain is not supported by modern neuroanatomy. To give an example, in MacLean's model, the limbic system is characterized as a “lower mammalian” part of the brain. There is evidence, however, that reptiles have a limbic system (Bruce and Neary, 1995; Lanuza et al., 1998).

MacLean’s “triune brain” hypothesis may have caught the popular imagination, but it has not proved useful in modern neurobiology.

 

 

1. Well, yeah. Things diverged. Ok, but where?

2. Ok, so repitles have a limbic system, allegedly.... I've not read the article (i got paywalled in the past few months; old uni revoked my access). But where along the evolutionary path are these reported reptiles in relation to humans? Furthermore, as that article in last 90s, I'm thinking the whole interdisciplinary stuff wasn't well embedded enough: psychology and neuroscience. Not enough information. I feel like a fallacy is being committed in that paragraph but I can't pull it out.

3. In terms of modern neurobiology, it's a basis for some ideas. But I think the idea of saying that certain parts are "reptillian" may be a hasty generalization.

Edited by Genecks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.