Synaptic Pruning

[CelticMoon11]

Sorry wasn't sure where to put this..

I'm studying for my Developmental Psych exam on Monday (*cries*). Anyway I came across the concept of synaptic pruning which involves neurons in the brain and a part of them called dendrites. Soon after reaching our peak at about age 1, synapses begins to gradually disappear effectively "downsizing" the 'unneccessary connections' between neurons.

Anyway do you think this has an impact on any psychic abilities we may or may not have if we chose to not use them or don't begin spiritual development from an earlier age? If so, then why is the age of formal operational thought not till adolescence when we are able to develop more abstract reasoning but we have had so many years of synapsis pruning? :awilly: So maybe the older and more developed we are in abstract reasoning is the way to go, but our brain function has deteriorated...hmm

Sorry random brain fart *trudges back off to study*

[Hippolyta]

There was a great article on this event in Time magazine from September 2004. Very informative if you have a chance to read it. I agree with you, we are able to tap into our natural abilities and use them wisely. As opposed to children who are not so discriminating. Especially adolescents! I think this may also explain why some people are unaccepting of pagans. That part has simply been weeded out of their brain. Good Luck studying.

:idea:

[AussiePagan]

Sorry wasn't sure where to put this..

I'm studying for my Developmental Psych exam on Monday (*cries*). Anyway I came across the concept of synaptic pruning which involves neurons in the brain and a part of them called dendrites. Soon after reaching our peak at about age 1, synapses begins to gradually disappear effectively "downsizing" the 'unneccessary connections' between neurons.

Anyway do you think this has an impact on any psychic abilities we may or may not have if we chose to not use them or don't begin spiritual development from an earlier age? If so, then why is the age of formal operational thought not till adolescence when we are able to develop more abstract reasoning but we have had so many years of synapsis pruning? :awilly: So maybe the older and more developed we are in abstract reasoning is the way to go, but our brain function has deteriorated...hmm

Sorry random brain fart *trudges back off to study*


I touched on synaptic pruning when we were looking at psyc reasons behind games and why children need to play games in Games 1, just keep in mind I'm a games student not a psyc :nyah:.

The way I understood is the brain before hand is just this big mass of connections. The experiences the child receieves strengthens particular connections. The ones that aren't used are dropped, probablity to save the energy reqiured to maintain those connections. So the connections for say language will get saved if the child is exposed to langauges. There was an intresting case of a child actually raised by dogs, who then thought he was a dog. All his "human" synaps got nuked and when someone found him and was put in an insitute for the insane and never recovered _inabox_

So I think we just get rid of the connections our brain doesn't think its gonna need. But if we do have a need its got this awesome rewiring ability so other parts of the brain can go, okay I see your doing lots of this type of thinking, righto time to add more connecitons. So its like other parts of the body, if you show that you need it to be bigger, faster, strong, it gets bigger faster stronger.

We can't do abstract thinking until our late teen years mostly because I don't think we know enough about the world yet. I tried to explain to my little brother when he was in preschool that he would get old one day, and the whole concept of time just hadn't developed yet :lol: And we only prune the connections we don't need, if we need 'em we get em back again.

I think, like all mental stuff, developing psychic abilities would be better when we are younger and at that crazy stage around 2-3ish when we are learning like 200 new words a day. But, hey we can still learn stuff when we are older, it just takes more effort to switch the brain back into learning mode.


Soorry for being a bit rambly, but im hungover as hell; forgot to drink water before bed :foopsies:

[CelticMoon11]

Well I know to cognitively develop to a point that allows us to work abstractly takes time which is why it occurs in later maturity. I just thought it was odd that with this maturity comes a decline in neuron wiring in the brain, and whether or not abstract reasoning or synapsis pruning would have a greater impact on psychic ability

I had a lecturer come to 'inspire' us for our HSC as there were so many people dropping out :lol: and talked about how reworking the wiring and forcing new neuron pathways "hurts" us in a sense which is a major reason people drop out of study because of this reversal of synapsis pruning.. I suppose that's why I always have a momumental headache after playing with Zenner Cards lol. I dunno, just thought it was interesting to think about, heh, thinking really does hurt :p :lol: jks

[AussiePagan]

Well I know to cognitively develop to a point that allows us to work abstractly takes time which is why it occurs in later maturity. I just thought it was odd that with this maturity comes a decline in neuron wiring in the brain, and whether or not abstract reasoning or synapsis pruning would have a greater impact on psychic ability

I had a lecturer come to 'inspire' us for our HSC as there were so many people dropping out :lol: and talked about how reworking the wiring and forcing new neuron pathways "hurts" us in a sense which is a major reason people drop out of study because of this reversal of synapsis pruning.. I suppose that's why I always have a momumental headache after playing with Zenner Cards lol. I dunno, just thought it was interesting to think about, heh, thinking really does hurt :p :lol: jks


Yeah, but that hurting feeling feels good once you actually get the concept and go woooooh, kewl so thats how that works. I think it hurts to stop you from thinking while the brain goes of and bulids more pathways for us :lol:

[CelticMoon11]

Well I've crammed 7 of 15 chapters into my brain today GO ME! :lol: Yes it hurt :p lol

[jcldragon]

When a brain cell dies, it's gone & you can forget about it. However, the body is very adapable, so new synatic connections can always be made to work around damage. That's why people with some brain damage (from like a stroke) can recover function.

They say that the average person only uses 10% of their brain. Considering what I see going on in the world, that seems about right. Each & every one of us could be a whole lot smarter, if we applied ourselves, since the potential is there.

Exposure to music stimulates the development of synaptic connections & higher brain development. That is true for anyone at any age. (Note to pregnant women : Please listen to lots of different kinds of music with complex harmonies & melodies, because even though the Soul won't take over the new body until the moment of birth, you can do a lot to prepare that body for the Soul beforehand.)

Mathematical thought, (especially Geometry), produces Alpha waves in the brain, just as meditation does. This directly stimulates synaptic development of higher brain functions. The Moving Mandalas section of my website, was created specificly for this purpose, and works especially well in conjunction with my set of Mental Yoga/Occult Exercises. Using techniques like these, encourages the brain to develop synaptic connections that will awaken all of the fabled powers of the Adepts. Each & every one of us, has the potential of genius & Enlightenment within us, and it is only a matter of applying ourselves in those directions, to make it all happen.

[AussiePagan]

They say that the average person only uses 10% of their brain. Considering what I see going on in the world, that seems about right. Each & every one of us could be a whole lot smarter, if we applied ourselves, since the potential is there.


That's a myth.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

[CelticMoon11]

I was just about to point that out we cover that in psych 101 :lol: or 103 can't remember which :)

Babies also don't hear until very late in the pregnancy stage supposedly but I plan on singing away the moment I find out anyway :lol:

sounds like a wonderful website I do yoga at the moment about once a week or so depending on time, assignments and exams but they are nearly all over so will hopefully be increasing it to every day *notes to look at website after exam*

I've now studied 9 of 15chapters mwhahaha my poor neuron pathways are getting such a blasting :D

[AussiePagan]

I've now studied 9 of 15chapters mwhahaha my poor neuron pathways are getting such a blasting
Just don't pull a neuron now :hehehehe:

So thats 9 chapters in one day ? How big are the chapters ?

[StephanieAine]

Sorry wasn't sure where to put this..

I'm studying for my Developmental Psych exam on Monday (*cries*). Anyway I came across the concept of synaptic pruning which involves neurons in the brain and a part of them called dendrites. Soon after reaching our peak at about age 1, synapses begins to gradually disappear effectively "downsizing" the 'unneccessary connections' between neurons.

Anyway do you think this has an impact on any psychic abilities we may or may not have if we chose to not use them or don't begin spiritual development from an earlier age? If so, then why is the age of formal operational thought not till adolescence when we are able to develop more abstract reasoning but we have had so many years of synapsis pruning? :awilly: So maybe the older and more developed we are in abstract reasoning is the way to go, but our brain function has deteriorated...hmm

Sorry random brain fart *trudges back off to study*


You are asking *really good* questions there. I don't know what you're headed toward professionally, but I have a feeling you've got an outstanding future ahead of you.

I don't have any answers - but I do have a comment. I don't know if this will be of interest to you at all, but it might be, considering that it applies somewhat to what you're currently studying and the particular question you're posing.

You mentioned the fact that children are said to be incapable of abstract thought until a certain age. Well, my daughter is now just about 21 years old... but years ago, back when she was six years old, she had a battery of tests done. The circumstances were difficult because she had been through trauma leading to PTSD and major depression - so the psychiatrists and psychologists said that her test results were lower than they would be if she had been tested *prior* to the trauma. So, the results they came up with were to be considered "lower than they really are, but at least a minimal idea" of her mental capablities, strengths/weaknesses, brain function, and so forth.

A couple of interesting things were discovered. First, she is highly gifted (I hate talking about this because it sounds like I'm having a big old Bragfest over here... but I swear, this *does* apply to what I'm saying here! Anyway - the IQ score was 135 - and again, that's said to be her low score. She was not retested after she recovered from the depression and the worst of the PTSD symptoms). I knew she was exceptionally intelligent for a number of reasons (like reading adult books - Faulkner, for example - at age 6, and beginning to read at age 3)... but I had no clue that she was bright enough to have a test result like that. I figured it was the kind of thing only a mama would notice <g>. Anyway, that was the first thing that was interesting...

The other thing had to do with abstract thought. The psychiatrists gave her certain tests that she was supposedly going to be unable to do. The reason they gave her the test at all was because of something she said to them (I don't remember what it was) that apparently made them wonder if she was capable of certain types of thought even though she was just six years old. So, they tested her. Sure enough, she came through with flying colors. Supposedly "impossible."

Well, my mother just happened to be taking a course in college around that time (she went back to school to become a psychologist). One day during class, the instructor was discussing abstract thought, and he used an example having to do with containers of liquid (like a drinking glass, for example). He described a test that had been given to kids of different ages which involved a series of containers of different shapes, widths, heights, and so forth - containers that were wildly different.

The containers were filled with liquid - but the trick was that all the containers were filled with the same amount of liquid during one part of the test, and during another part, they had the same amount of liquid in some of them, and a couple of them had more liquid or less liquid.

They brought in children of different ages from preschool to teenaged and asked them questions having to do with the containers of liquid. Then they documented which kids were able to predict certain things about the containers, who wanted to measure the liquid to see how much was there, who could answer questions just by glancing at the containers, all sorts of things.

But the easiest test was to just take one large tall glass of water and one short, wide glass, and put the same amount of liquid in each one. The water level will *appear* higher than the other one when you have the glasses side by side, but that's only because of the shape and size of the glass. That one question, the instructor said, was a good way to show that small children automatically think that there's more liquid in one glass than there is in the other.

Well, my mom said that she thought of my daughter right away when the instructor said that - and she recalled what the psychiatrists said about my daughter, too. We were having coffee at my mom's house at the time, and my daughter was in the other room watching cartoons.

Mom said, "I want to see if she can figure this out or not!" She grabbed a tall glass (like an 8 oz drinking glass) and a short wide one... then she used a measuring cup to put the same amount of water/juice (whatever it was) in each glass, then put them side by side on the kitchen counter. Then she called my daughter into the room.

When she arrived, Mom said, "Hey, I have a quick question - which one of these glasses has more (water, juice, whatever) in it? I can't tell." She said something about wanting to share fairly or something.

My daughter walked up, looked at the glasses, and said right away, "There isn't more in one - it's 'even'."

My mom was blown away - I have no idea why she didn't believe the first test results from the doctors; I guess she needed to see for herself... but she was still blown away, because her instructor said that children ***absolutely CAN NOT*** answer such a question because of the way their brains work. (Mom even tried to double-check by attempting to make my daughter doubt her thoughts by saying, "Are you SURE it's the same?" and "But look - the top of the liquid is higher in this one - maybe there's more here." Didn't fool her; my daughter said right away, "That's because it's a different cup.")

Anyway, my daughter was discussing abstract concepts for YEARS prior to this. I can distinctly remember her asking me what "justice" was when she was very little, and how we had a long conversation about justice and the concepts of truth and fairness. Clearly, she could do it. So *plenty* of kids must be capable of this.

What I wonder is if the ability to engage in abstract thought is in any way connected to intelligence. Since we know that her IQ is above average, that would seem like a possible reason for her to have that ability at a very young age... but it might be totally unrelated. What are your theories? Any ideas?

One of my ideas has to do with religion. When my daughter was still a toddler she started asking about God... and so I answered the questions to the best of my ability, even though I figured she would only understand certain parts of what I said (as it turned out, she understood everything I said - but my point is that I didn't "dumb down" my answers just because she was a little thing at the time)...

In one sense, I can see evidence of abstract thought simply in the fact that she *asked* about God (she would have to have the ability to think in that way in order to form questions and have certain theories).

On the other hand, maybe the fact that I engaged in conversations with her that had to do with abstract ideas somehow trained her to use her brain in an "older" way - more like an older child would? Maybe she formed the ability as a response to her intellectual environment, I suppose you could say.

I really don't have any idea - but I'd certainly be interested to hear your thoughts.

-Stevie

[Dawa Lhamo]

Well, my little brother could, at the age of about six, explain in detail the philosophies of Buddhism. He could talk about reality and perception, emptiness, compassion, desire... all on an "adult level".... I think a child's mind is far less simple than commonly thought.

Very interesting. ^_^

[CelticMoon11]

You are asking *really good* questions there. I don't know what you're headed toward professionally, but I have a feeling you've got an outstanding future ahead of you.

Aww shucks lol _inabox_ thanks :), professionally I plan on doing psychology for a while, probably justice studies so I can be a counsellor in the police force to save up to open my own counselling and metaphysical business....so pretty much I want to do a bit of everything! :D

I don't have any answers - but I do have a comment. I don't know if this will be of interest to you at all, but it might be, considering that it applies somewhat to what you're currently studying and the particular question you're posing.

You mentioned the fact that children are said to be incapable of abstract thought until a certain age. Well, my daughter is now just about 21 years old... but years ago, back when she was six years old, she had a battery of tests done. The circumstances were difficult because she had been through trauma leading to PTSD and major depression - so the psychiatrists and psychologists said that her test results were lower than they would be if she had been tested *prior* to the trauma. So, the results they came up with were to be considered "lower than they really are, but at least a minimal idea" of her mental capablities, strengths/weaknesses, brain function, and so forth.

A couple of interesting things were discovered. First, she is highly gifted (I hate talking about this because it sounds like I'm having a big old Bragfest over here... but I swear, this *does* apply to what I'm saying here! Anyway - the IQ score was 135 - and again, that's said to be her low score. She was not retested after she recovered from the depression and the worst of the PTSD symptoms). I knew she was exceptionally intelligent for a number of reasons (like reading adult books - Faulkner, for example - at age 6, and beginning to read at age 3)... but I had no clue that she was bright enough to have a test result like that. I figured it was the kind of thing only a mama would notice <g>. Anyway, that was the first thing that was interesting...

That's fine :lol: there's a difference between bragging and sharing an experience, and thank you for sharing :).

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Reasoning is a very interesting one, where age doesn't factor in, with some adults never going past the obedience and 'self-profit' mentality called the "preconventional stage", while others seem to take massive leaps straight to the postconventional stage of abstract principles with no age restrictions (which I think is more appropriate). I found I was quite annoyed when I was reading that abstract thought isn't used until adolescence in another theory (which I should know as my exam is tomorrow eep!!) because when I was quite small I was talking to God, questioning the world, and worked out by myself the concept of Santa Claus wasn't real :lol:. Talking to young girls (sorry boys :() they seem to be ON AVERAGE IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH COUSINS, ETC, capable of more complex thought at an earlier age.

The other thing had to do with abstract thought. The psychiatrists gave her certain tests that she was supposedly going to be unable to do. The reason they gave her the test at all was because of something she said to them (I don't remember what it was) that apparently made them wonder if she was capable of certain types of thought even though she was just six years old. So, they tested her. Sure enough, she came through with flying colors. Supposedly "impossible."

Well, my mother just happened to be taking a course in college around that time (she went back to school to become a psychologist). One day during class, the instructor was discussing abstract thought, and he used an example having to do with containers of liquid (like a drinking glass, for example). He described a test that had been given to kids of different ages which involved a series of containers of different shapes, widths, heights, and so forth - containers that were wildly different.

The containers were filled with liquid - but the trick was that all the containers were filled with the same amount of liquid during one part of the test, and during another part, they had the same amount of liquid in some of them, and a couple of them had more liquid or less liquid.

They brought in children of different ages from preschool to teenaged and asked them questions having to do with the containers of liquid. Then they documented which kids were able to predict certain things about the containers, who wanted to measure the liquid to see how much was there, who could answer questions just by glancing at the containers, all sorts of things.

But the easiest test was to just take one large tall glass of water and one short, wide glass, and put the same amount of liquid in each one. The water level will *appear* higher than the other one when you have the glasses side by side, but that's only because of the shape and size of the glass. That one question, the instructor said, was a good way to show that small children automatically think that there's more liquid in one glass than there is in the other.

Well, my mom said that she thought of my daughter right away when the instructor said that - and she recalled what the psychiatrists said about my daughter, too. We were having coffee at my mom's house at the time, and my daughter was in the other room watching cartoons.

Mom said, "I want to see if she can figure this out or not!" She grabbed a tall glass (like an 8 oz drinking glass) and a short wide one... then she used a measuring cup to put the same amount of water/juice (whatever it was) in each glass, then put them side by side on the kitchen counter. Then she called my daughter into the room.

When she arrived, Mom said, "Hey, I have a quick question - which one of these glasses has more (water, juice, whatever) in it? I can't tell." She said something about wanting to share fairly or something.

My daughter walked up, looked at the glasses, and said right away, "There isn't more in one - it's 'even'."

Yep I just studied the exact test you are talking about :D. It's one of Piaget's Conservation Experiments. Current studies have indicated that some kids can actually do this a lot earlier than thought because of the way the questions are originally designed. If you ask a child a question, and then repeat it, it is usually associated for kids that they must have got it wrong so they change their response. It's been found a lot of kids second guess themselves and think there is some sort of "trick" involved and to answer differently means they get the correct answer and will be praised. It's not that it isn't a valid test it's just how the questions asked that's important :) A few other tests that you can do is to have two rows of 5 coins in line with each other so they are in two neat corresponding rows, then move the top row further apart and the bottom row of coins closer together and ask if they are the same or not. It doesn't give me an age range of when kidlets are meant to be able to do these tasks.

Yes it is definately a good sign that she was able to answer these especially if your mum followed the conventional question format which does make it extremely hard for a majority of children to answer because of what I just stated :) definately a clever little cookie!! :D

My mom was blown away - I have no idea why she didn't believe the first test results from the doctors; I guess she needed to see for herself... but she was still blown away, because her instructor said that children ***absolutely CAN NOT*** answer such a question because of the way their brains work. (Mom even tried to double-check by attempting to make my daughter doubt her thoughts by saying, "Are you SURE it's the same?" and "But look - the top of the liquid is higher in this one - maybe there's more here." Didn't fool her; my daughter said right away, "That's because it's a different cup.")

Yep definately a clever cookie and sounds like a very confident one too! :D

Anyway, my daughter was discussing abstract concepts for YEARS prior to this. I can distinctly remember her asking me what "justice" was when she was very little, and how we had a long conversation about justice and the concepts of truth and fairness. Clearly, she could do it. So *plenty* of kids must be capable of this.

What I wonder is if the ability to engage in abstract thought is in any way connected to intelligence. Since we know that her IQ is above average, that would seem like a possible reason for her to have that ability at a very young age... but it might be totally unrelated. What are your theories? Any ideas?

I can't find the section at the moment (I shouldn't have to I have an exam on this ahhhh!! lol) but yes they do believe there is a link between TYPES of intelligence and abstract thought. There are various levels of intellegence such as spatial, linguistic etc, with kids being stronger in differing area's. Although typically two intellegent parents will usually have intellegent offspring they also know that environment and stimulation has a lot to do with the development of abstract reasoning with parents who present abstract ideas and discussing it through with children having children with more advanced levels. A lot of parents treat their kids like, well, kids, and not little "adults in the making" and dumb down information for them instead of explaining things more indepth and in a more complex fashion and explaining these ideas. Which I agree with, I find people who have "baby-talked" and "dumbed down" everything have children who talk like babies and only have very basic knowledge with parents who engage their kids on a more intellectual level are able to converse way beyond the level of their classmates.

I did Primary School studies for a time and noticed this straight away (also studied Psych at this point as well) and found that the most behind child was a girl (sweet as pie though I wanted to adopt her lol) who's mum just babied her, dressed her up like a little doll and didn't engage with her on an intellectual level just told her how pretty she was so most of her answers consisted of "my mummy thinks im pretty", while a young boy (sweet as pie and also adoptable too lol) was VERY advanced, even though I was putting on a fake smile when the other kids were going mental he saw through it immediately and yelled at everyone to "stop being immature you're making miss sad!", which is VERY hard for children to be able to determine a fake smile and a 'real' smile. Anyways in talking with his mum who was a very intellegent woman she told me that he had one older brother that helped him with his homework every afternoon (he was a teenager) and that from a young age they explained everything in full, made him think about everything and had discussed his thoughts with him and let him work out the inconsistancies mostly on his own (which is supposedly one of THE best thing you can do for a child).

One of my ideas has to do with religion. When my daughter was still a toddler she started asking about God... and so I answered the questions to the best of my ability, even though I figured she would only understand certain parts of what I said (as it turned out, she understood everything I said - but my point is that I didn't "dumb down" my answers just because she was a little thing at the time)...

In one sense, I can see evidence of abstract thought simply in the fact that she *asked* about God (she would have to have the ability to think in that way in order to form questions and have certain theories).

On the other hand, maybe the fact that I engaged in conversations with her that had to do with abstract ideas somehow trained her to use her brain in an "older" way - more like an older child would? Maybe she formed the ability as a response to her intellectual environment, I suppose you could say.

I really don't have any idea - but I'd certainly be interested to hear your thoughts.

-Stevie

Yes definately, like I just stated engaging kids in abstract concepts, not dumbing down responses and talking things through with them is one of the most beneficial things you can do for a child in developing their level of abstract thought. I mean with synapsis pruning if you are developing area's of the brain before they die off then you are strengthening the connections from a young age which paves the way for very complex development later on. I'm very glad that I have done this course as it really does give a lot of insight into the development of the childs mind and what you can do to give them the best chances in life I think all parents should do this course it's so interesting, especially baby development it's absolutely amazing what they know from such a young age!

On a more general note I've based my answers off the book "Human Development: A Life-Span View" by Robert V. Kail and John C. Cavanaugh 3rd edition ISBN0-534-59751-3 so if anyone wants to debate my responses contact them :p :lol:

Thanks for sharing that StephanieAine not only was it interesting (and I'm very happy for you and your daughter :) ) it also made me think about the 10 chapters I crammed yesterday so was good study! :lol:

[CelticMoon11]

Just don't pull a neuron now :hehehehe:

So thats 9 chapters in one day ? How big are the chapters ?

The end of chapter 10 is page 414 with the pages being 28cm tall by 20cm wide and I think a size 12 or 14 font in Roman Times yerp all in one freakin day lol.

I read 6 books of 700pages each in a size 9 font in about 20days before I'm a freak I know lol

I ONLY HAVE 200PAGES TO GO WOOHOO!!

[AussiePagan]

The end of chapter 10 is page 414 with the pages being 28cm tall by 20cm wide and I think a size 12 or 14 font in Roman Times yerp all in one freakin day lol.

I read 6 books of 700pages each in a size 9 font in about 20days before I'm a freak I know lol

I ONLY HAVE 200PAGES TO GO WOOHOO!!

Wow, awesome effort mate. :cheers: I can usually only 1/2 a chapter to a chapter at a time when dealing with textbooks, they are just so conceptually thick :awilly: ...or maybe I'm just thick :hehehehe:

[CelticMoon11]

I'm like that with math subjects but this subject is really interesting so it's like I'm reading a really good interesting book I don't really want to put it down :D but Im also resistant to read because I *know* its for study and study isnt meant to be fun! lol jks