''Trust your memory? Maybe you shouldn't'' -- CNN

CNN

Story highlights

Elizabeth Loftus is a psychologist and expert on the malleability of human memory

Loftus is most known for her work on memory distortion and false memory implantation

Her research could also be used to fight obesity, addiction with false memories

  (CNN)You probably feel pretty attached to your memories -- they're yours, after all. They define who you are and where you came from, your accomplishments and failures, your likes and dislikes.

 

  Your memories help you separate friends from enemies. They remind you not to eat too much ice cream or drink cheap tequila because you remember how horrible it felt the last time you indulged.

Or do you?

  One conversation with Elizabeth Loftus may shake your confidence in everything you think you remember. Loftus is a cognitive psychologist and expert on the malleability of human memory. She can, quite literally, change your mind.

  Her work is reminiscent of films like "Memento" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," where what you believe happened is probably far from the truth -- whether you're the eyewitness to a crime or just trying to move past a bad relationship.

  "She's most known for her important work on memory distortion and false memories," says Daniel Schacter, a psychology professor at Harvard University who first met Loftus in 1979 and describes her as energetic, smart and passionate. "It's made people in the legal system aware the memory does not work like a tape recorder."

  In fact, Loftus' research shows your memory works more like a Wikipedia page -- a transcription of history created by multiple people's perceptions and assumptions that's constantly changing.

Eyewitness testimony

Elizabeth Loftus is a cognitive psychologist at the University of California Irvine.

  One of Loftus' first experiments, published in 1974, involved car accidents. In the lab she played videos of different incidents and then asked people what they remembered seeing. Their answers depended greatly on how she phrased the question.

  For instance, if she asked how fast the cars were going when they "smashed" into each other, people estimated, on average, that the cars were going 7 mph faster than when she substituted the word "hit" for "smashed." And a week after seeing the video, those who were asked using the word "smashed" remembered seeing broken glass, even though there was none in the film.

  Even a seemingly less important word in the sentence can make a difference in an eyewitness account, Loftus found. In a subsequent study she asked people if they saw "a broken headlight" or "the broken headlight." Those who were asked about "the" broken headlight were more likely to remember seeing it, though it never existed.

  Police officers' biggest mistake is talking too much, Loftus says. "They don't, you know, wait and let the witness talk. They are sometimes communicating information to the witness, even inadvertently, that can convey their theory of what happened, their theory of who did it."

  This is particularly troubling when witnesses are identifying a perpetrator in a lineup. One of Loftus' studies found even facial recognition can be "contagious" -- if a witness overhears another witness or police officer describe a misleading facial feature, they are more likely to describe the criminal with that feature.

  It's not all the cops' fault. "Misinformation is out there in the real world, everywhere," Loftus says. "Witnesses talk to each other ... they turn on the television or read the newspaper if it's a high-publicity event. They see other witnesses' account. All of these situations provide opportunities for new information to supplement, distort or contaminate their memories."

  Loftus has testified in and consulted on hundreds of trials over the past several decades, usually for the defense. Many were high-profile cases, including those of the Hillside Strangler, Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart, Oliver North and Phil Spector.

  She's not bothered by defending people others sometimes see as vicious criminals.

  "DNA testing ... has revealed that there are hundreds and hundreds of people who have been convicted in crimes, and they're completely innocent," she says, noting that they're often convicted because of unreliable eyewitness testimony.

Repressed memories

  Perhaps Loftus' most powerful -- and controversial -- work came in the 1990s when she first began manufacturing false memories.

  In 1990, Loftus got an intriguing call from the defense attorney for George Franklin, father of Eileen Franklin. In her mid-20s, Eileen Franklin claimed she remembered seeing her father rape and murder her best friend as a child. The prosecution said she had repressed the memory up until that point.

  Loftus testified at the trial about the fallibility of memories but could not say whether she had ever studied repressed memories such as Eileen Franklin was maintaining. George Franklin was convicted, and Loftus went back to the lab.

  After doing some research, she became convinced a therapist might have led Eileen Franklin to suspect her father in the murder. Therapists were essentially guiding patients to remember false events, Loftus believed -- asking leading questions and telling their patients to imagine an event that might have happened.

  For example, if a woman came in with an eating disorder, her therapist might say "80% of patients with an eating disorder were abused. Were you?" Then the therapist might ask the patient to think about who might have abused her and when.

  While Loftus couldn't definitively prove that repressed memories weren't real, she could show that it was possible to implant a memory of a traumatic event that never happened.

  Loftus recruited 24 students and their close family members for her 1995 study "The Formation of False Memories." She asked each family member to provide her with three real childhood memories for their student, and then sent these memories in a packet, along with one false memory, to the study participants. The false memories were about getting lost on a shopping trip and included real details, such as the name of a store where they often shopped and siblings they were likely with.

  The students were told all four memories were real and had been supplied by their family member. After receiving the packet, the students identified whether they remembered each event and how confident they were that it had happened to them. In follow-up interviews the researchers asked them to recall details from the events they remembered.

  Seven of the 24 students "remembered" the false event in their packets. Several recalled and added their own details to the memory.

  "It was pretty exciting to watch these normal, healthy individuals pick up on the suggestions in our interviews, and pick up the false information that we fed them," Loftus says.

  Loftus continued her experiments, convincing study participants they had broken a window with their hand, witnessed a drug bust, choked on an object before the age of 3 and had experienced other traumatic events. And she continued to testify in cases involving repressed memories.

  "I don't think there's any credible, scientific support for this notion of massive repression," Loftus says. "It's been my position that, you know, we may one day find (the evidence), but until we do, we shouldn't be locking people up."

Unhealthy habits

 Loftus soon began to wonder if she could influence other behaviors. What if she could convince people they had a negative experience with unhealthy food as a child? Would they eat less of it as an adult?

  Using her finely tuned "recipe" for memory implantation, she guided study participants to believe they had gotten sick eating strawberry ice cream as children.

  A week later, researchers asked about the ice cream incident. Many participants had developed a detailed memory -- what Loftus calls a "rich false memory" -- about when they had gotten sick. 

Subsequent studies showed this memory affected the participant's actual eating behavior.

  It seemed obvious to Loftus that there was potential here to fight obesity. Therapists couldn't lie to their patients, but parents could convince kids that they didn't like ice cream or other fattening foods. Critics raged that she was advocating lying to children.

  "Which would you rather have?" Loftus replied simply. "A kid with obesity, heart problems, shortened lifespan, diabetes -- or maybe a little bit of false memory?"

  Schacter, who also studies memory, objects to the term "playing around" with someone's mind. He, Loftus and others like them are simply trying to understand what's going on in our memories, he says. "We're assessing the limits of memory, the accuracy of memory. ... Almost by definition we think we're remembering accurately, even though we're not."

  Already this year Loftus has co-authored studies on false memories related to alcohol, politics andstressful events. In one, called "Queasy Does It," Loftus' team took the same methods they used to persuade people to eat less ice cream and applied them to vodka or rum. Loftus says this research could potentially be used to help addicts in the future.

  Her lab at the University of California Irvine is also working to identify the individual differences that make people more or less susceptible to memory alteration.

  Sometime Loftus worries about crossing into unethical territory -- like when she created false memories in military personnel who were training to survive as prisoners of war. When the study published, she feared "we were going to basically be giving (our enemies) a recipe for how to do bad things to other people and then contaminate their memory."

  But as a scientist, she says sharing how to implant memories -- so we can potentially learn how to protect against it -- is better than burying the information.

Walking the line

  In 2006, Loftus attended a talk by legal scholar Adam Kolber on the legal and ethical implications of memory-dampening drugs. According to Kolber, neuroscientists had made significant strides in creating medications victims could take after a traumatic event to dampen the intensity of their memories. Kolber contended that while those drugs could hamper legal proceedings, "We have a deeply personal interest in controlling our own minds that entitles us to a certain freedom of memory."

  Loftus was fascinated. "I thought to myself, 'I would want (the drugs),'" she says. Her colleague disagreed. So like any good experimental psychologist, Loftus started a study.

  She asked people if they were the victim of a vicious crime, would they want to take the drug? Eighty percent said no. Well, maybe they want to be able to testify against the perpetrator, Loftus thought. So she ran it again -- this time asking if they would take the drug after seeing their military buddy blown up by an IED overseas. Eighty percent refused.

  "I thought, maybe I need to explain to them just how bad post-traumatic stress disorder is," she remembers. So she did. "And they still don't want the drug."

  The results taught Loftus just how much people cherish their memories.

  "Even if it's going to be a harmful memory, they don't want to let it go," she says. "(This is) why sometimes I get such resistance to the work I do. Because it's telling people that your mind might be full of much more fiction than you realize. And people don't like that."

  But you don't need a psychological researcher to distort your memory in a lab, Loftus says. People distort their own memories all the time -- they remember getting better grades than they did, voting in more elections than they did, having kids that walked or talked earlier than they actually did. Loftus calls this "prestige-enhancing memories."

  We all want to remember ourselves as just a little bit better than we really are, Loftus says, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Scientists call it "depressive realism," and say depressed people may just remember things more accurately than the rest of us.

  "A little bit of memory distortion might be good for people," Loftus says.

  This from the woman who has the power to make us remember traumatic childhood events that never happened. Hey, at least we still like ice cream.

''Chronic stress can hurt your memory'' -- CNN

CNN

  A third of the brain's volume is composed of blood vessels. Maintaining a healthy blood flow to those blood vessels is critical to keeping the brain young. Here are six ways you can keep your mind sharp:

  Exercise Research has shown exercise improves brain health, and it's never too early or too late to begin. Even moderate exercise has been shown to increase memory, mental processing speed and the size of the hippocampus, the part of the brain responsible for forming new memories, even in previously sedentary adults. Simply walking three times a week has been shown to produce significant gains in memory and mental processing speed.

  Eat right Neurologists agree a diet rich in vegetables, fruits, whole grains and legumes will help keep the brain healthy. They also advocate eating fish, walnuts, flax seed or other sources of omega-3 fatty acids. Curcumin, found in the spice curry, may also be protective against Alzheimer's. Conversely, a high-fat diet and obesity raise the risk for dementia. So do high cholesterol, diabetes and high blood pressure if left untreated.

  Watch your levels Research has shown high levels of the amino acid homocysteine is associated with a poor memory and doubles the risk of Alzheimer's. Vitamin B12 and folic acid lowers the level of homocysteine, which is also associated with heart disease and strokes. Green, leafy vegetables and fruits contain folic acid; meat, fish, yogurt and fortified cereals contain vitamin B12.

  Ease stress Lowering the amount of stress in your life lowers the risk for dementia. A glass of wine

Photo by: or other moderate alcohol consumption

  Stay social Maintaining an active social life provides mental stimulation and lowers stress. It also lowers the risk for dementia and Alzheimer's disease. The more social activities, the better, and people who choose mentally challenging leisure pursuits such as playing cards with friends or joining a community organization do better in general than those whose activities are primarily physical or social. Living alone or avoiding social ties raises the risk of dementia.

  Learn More formal education is associated with lower rates of dementia and Alzheimer's, but "use it or lose it" applies at any age -- and more with the brain than the muscles, neurologists say. To keep the brain sharp, experts recommend learning new and fun mental activities. Crossword puzzles or sudoku, once mastered after a month or so, may not stimulate the brain the way learning a new language, picking up a musical instrument or joining a book club might.

6 ways to keep the brain young

Exercise

Eat right

Watch your levels

Ease stress

Stay social

Learn

(CNN) -- Do you tend to forget things when you're stressed? Like when you're late for a meeting and can't remember where you left your car keys? Or when you have to give a big presentation and suddenly forget all your talking points seconds before you start?

There's nothing like stress to make your memory go a little spotty. A 2010 study found that chronic stress reduces spatial memory: the memory that helps you recall locations and relate objects.

Hence, your missing car keys.

University of Iowa researchers also found a connection between the stress hormone cortisol and short-term memory loss in older adults. Their findings, published in the Journal of Neuroscience this week, found that cortisol reduced synapses -- connections that help store and recall information -- in the pre-frontal cortex.

But there's a difference between how your brain processes long-term job stress, for example, and the stress of getting into a car accident. Researchsuggests low levels of anxiety can affect your ability to recall memories; acute or high-anxiety situations, on the other hand, can actually reinforce the learning process.

Trust your memory? Maybe you shouldn't

How addiction changes your brain

Photo by: How addiction changes your brain

We may soon be able to upload memories

Photo by: We may soon be able to upload memories

Generation stressed: teens boiling over

Photo by: Generation stressed: teens boiling over

  Acute stress increases your brain's ability to encode and recall traumatic events, according to studies. These memories get stored in the part of the brain responsible for survival, and serve as a warning and defense mechanism against future trauma.

If the stress you're experiencing is ongoing, however, there can be devastating effects.

Neuroscientists from the University of California, Berkeley, found that chronic stress can create long-term changes in the brain. Stress increases the development of white matter, which helps send messages across the brain, but decreases the number of neurons that assist with information processing.

  The neuroscientists say the resulting imbalance can affect your brain's ability to communicate with itself, and make you more vulnerable to developing a mental illness.

Defects in white matter have been associated with schizophrenia, chronic depression, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Research on post-traumatic stress disorder further shows that it can reduce the amount of gray matter in the brain.

The Berkeley researchers believe their findings could explain why young people who are exposed to chronic stress early in life are prone to learning difficulties, anxiety and other mood disorders.

  To reduce the effects of stress, the Mayo Clinic recommends identifying and reducing stress triggers. Eating a healthy diet, exercising, getting enough sleep and participating in a stress-reduction activity such as deep breathing, massage or yoga, can also help.

''How artificial light is wrecking your sleep, and what to do about it'' -- Chris Kresser

Chris Kresser

  “A good laugh and a long sleep are the best cures in the doctor’s book.” – Irish Proverb

  The evidence for the health benefits of adequate, restful sleep is overwhelming. Decades of research has shown that sleeping between 7 and 9 hours per night can relieve stress, reduce the risk of many chronic diseases, improve memory and cognitive function, and may even help with weight loss. (1) As many of us know by now, getting adequate, high-quality sleep is one of the most important, yet under-appreciated steps you can take to improve your overall health and wellbeing.

  Yet for all we know about the benefits of sleep, there are millions of Americans who are still suffering from disordered sleep and insomnia. 35% of Americans report getting less than 7 hours of sleep per night, and 63% of Americans say their sleep needs are not being met during the week. (2, 3) The negative effects of sleep deprivation are serious: sleep durations that are consistently shorter than 7 hours in a 24-hour period are associated with cardiovascular disease and diabetes risk factors, depression, automobile and workplace accidents, learning and memory problems, and an overall increase in mortality. (4) Some may argue that poor sleep can even undo the benefits of a healthy diet and exercise routine. (5, 6)

  So what’s causing this epidemic of sleep disruption in our country? Many experts feel that our excessive use of communications technology (e.g. cell phones, laptops, television, etc.) is driving this significant level of sleep deprivation. If this is the case, it’s no wonder so many Americans struggle with poor sleep, since 95% have reported using some type of electronics at least a few nights a week within the hour before bed. (7) Checking email, watching your favorite late-night comedian, or responding to a text message in bed seems harmless enough, but the sleep disruption caused by these light emitting devices is significant and potentially harmful to your health.

  Research has demonstrated that nighttime light exposure suppresses the production of melatonin, the major hormone secreted by the pineal gland that controls sleep and wake cycles. (8) Therefore, a reduction in melatonin at night is associated with subjective levels of sleeplessness. (9, 10) But melatonin suppression has far worse consequences than simply poor sleep outcomes: it has also been shown to increase the risk of cancer, impair immune system function, and possibly lead to cardiometabolic consequences such as type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, obesity, and heart disease. (11, 12, 13) With serious consequences like these, preventing melatonin suppression should be a top priority in anyone’s healthy lifestyle.

Blue light and melatonin suppression

  It is well established that short-wavelength or “blue” light is the most melatonin-suppressive; this is the type of light typically emitted by devices such as televisions, computer screens, and cellphones. (14, 15) To produce white light, these electronic devices must emit light at short wavelengths, close to the peak sensitivity of melatonin suppression. (16) This means that products such as tablets, smartphones, and other devices with self-luminous electronic displays are major sources for suppressing melatonin at night, thereby reducing sleep duration and disrupting sleep. (Figure credit: Wood et al, 2013)

  Along with blue light emitted from electronic devices, research has shown that being exposed to normal levels of room lighting can have similar negative effects on melatonin. One study showed that one hour of moderately bright light exposure (1000 lux) was sufficient to suppress nocturnal melatonin to daytime levels. (17) Since melatonin suppression is intensity dependent, researchers suggest that lower intensities can have similar suppression effects at longer durations; for example, two hours at 500 lux would have a similar effect as one hour at 1000 lux. (For examples of lux values, check out this helpful chart.) This means that typical room light alone can have a similar suppressing effect on melatonin secretion as the light from backlit screens. (18)

How to prevent melatonin disruption (without tossing your iPhone)

  Since it is predominantly the blue wavelength that is most affective in melatonin suppression, it stands to reason that blocking this wavelength of light should be enough to significantly reduce, or even eliminate the melatonin-suppressing effects of nighttime light exposure. (19) In fact, blocking blue light has been shown in several studies to be extremely effective in reducing the melatonin-suppressing effects of intense and/or blue light. (20, 21)

  There are a few possible solutions for reducing your exposure to blue light at night. One that is commonly used in the ancestral health community is a program calledf.lux, a program that makes the color of your computer’s display adapt to the time of day, warm at night and like sunlight during the day. This program can be installed on computers, iPads, and iPhones, and may have a significant effect on your melatonin secretion when using these devices at night. The best part about this program is that it turns on automatically in response to the daylight in your particular time zone, so there’s no need to remember any adjustments to the screen.

  A better option, in my opinion, is to use amber-lensed goggles once the sun has gone down. These blue-blocking lenses are highly effective in reducing the effects of blue light exposure, and in most cases completely eliminate the short-wavelength radiation necessary for nocturnal melatonin suppression. (22, 23, 24) These goggles have been shown to improve sleep quality as well as mood, simply by blocking blue light and simulating physiologic darkness.

  The main reason I recommend using these goggles is because normal room light alone is enough to suppress melatonin at night, and unless you’re shutting off all the lights in your house when the sun sets, you’re still at risk for disrupting your melatonin-driven circadian rhythms. (25) While f.lux is a useful tool for your backlit devices, it’s nearly impossible to address all sources of melatonin-suppressing light in today’s world of modern technology and late-night work and entertainment habits. Amber-colored goggles are one of the only tools available to completely eliminate all blue light exposure at night, without ‘going off the grid’ and powering down your entire house after 7 PM.

  There are two excellent (and cheap!) options for amber-lensed goggles on Amazon.com. The cheapest and most popular option is the Uvex brand, but if you wear eyeglasses you’ll need to get a wraparound pair like the Solar Shield brand. I’ve had many patients swear by these goggles, and if you can get over the dorkiness factor, you may find they make a big difference in your sleep quality, and perhaps even your general health and wellbeing as well!

''Burnout: The Enemy of Sleep'' -- Theatlantic

Theatlantic

  Arianna Huffington explains how banishing glowy devices and going to bed earlier lead to healthier work practices.

Cathal McNaughton/Reuters

  ASPEN, Colo.—Seven years ago, Arianna Huffington went on a college tour with her daughter, whose only request was "Mommy, no Blackberry" for the duration of the visit. Huffington consented, and after each long day of strolling through manicured lawns and stately lecture halls, the pair would have dinner and return to their hotel. Then, at about 10 p.m., Huffington would hop on her laptop and commence working, and she would keep at it until 2 or 3 in the morning. She'd then sleep for two or three hours, and then wake up early and start working again.

  "The Huffington Post was two years old at that point, and I felt it demanded my constant attention," she recently explained to an audience of hundreds at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-organized by The Atlantic and the Aspen Institute.

  When she returned home to New York, Huffington was standing in her living room one day when she collapsed, hitting her head on a desk on the way down and breaking her cheekbone. The accident, which she said was caused by exhaustion, served as a "wake-up call," she said.

  "That’s really what started me asking some of these big questions that we so often stop asking after we leave college—like, what is a good life, what is success?" she said. "Because while by conventional definitions of success, I was successful, by any sane definition of success, if you wake up in a pool of blood, and nobody has shot you, you are not successful."

  "By any sane definition of success, if you wake up in a pool of blood, and nobody has shot you, you are not successful."

That realization eventually became Huffington's most recent book, Thrive: The Third Metric to Redefining Success and Creating a Life of Well-Being, Wisdom, and Wonder.

  "The book is really three things converging. It is my own personal journey, it’s all the science with 55 pages of scientific endnotes," she said. "I want to convince the most stubborn skeptic that this is not some new-agey California, flakey idea, that this is really grounded in neuroscience and the latest findings."

  Huffington's new big idea is that in pursuit of ever-elusive markers of success, we are working ourselves to the point of burnout—that we've created a "sweat shop," with ourselves starring as both the ruthless foremen and the aching workers.

  She points to studies showing that Americans sleep less now than they did a few decades ago. She recommends that we recommit to the idea that life isn't all about accumulating all the money and power you can.

  What could a woman who already has money and power possibly want?

More sleep.

  Here's how Huffington gets it, as she described in her speech:

  "I went from four to five hours to seven to eight hours. And now, I am pretty religious about it. I also learned that if I am going to keep to this, it means learning that 'no' is a complete sentence. And it often means saying no to good things. But I don’t like anymore the feeling of walking through my day like a zombie."

  "Start by getting 30 minutes more than you are getting now. Everybody has 30 minutes."

"Have a 'thrive buddy'—someone who can help you if you are tempted to binge-watch Breaking Bad [in lieu of sleeping]. You can call your thrive buddy and they can talk you down."

"At the end of each day, think of something that no longer serves you. It could be a grudge you are holding against someone, someone you’re angry with, or it can be a project that you started in your head, but you’re not really going to do anything about it. It is very liberating to realize you can complete a project by dropping it."

  "At the end of the day, pick a time when you turn off all of your devices and gently escort them out of your bedroom. It’s terribly important. Because otherwise, if you have it charging by your bed, and you wake up in the middle of the night for whatever reason, you're going to be tempted. You allow your daytime with its challenges and problems that we all have to deal with to intrude into your recharging night time."

  "When you get up in the morning, one thing that has made a big difference in my life is not to immediately go to my smartphone. Take, like, one minute."

Ruben Sprich/Reuters

  She's also waged war on multitasking—HuffPo meetings are now device-free—and she's cut way down on her TV time. ("And also, it’s so wonderful to have a little silence in your life.")

  Her Thrive campaign has left its mark on the HuffPo offices, too: Employees aren't expected to check email when they're not in the office. The company offers yoga and free healthy snacks, and it has two nap rooms that are "perpetually full," she said.

  "Although I must say the other day I was going by one of them and I saw two people coming out of it .… So I thought to myself, 'Whatever it takes to recharge you.'"

  Huffington is a funny speaker and a powerful force—one audience member said she made her husband chug his beer so they could be on time for her talk. Her message is even more resonant now that, for many, work has bled thoroughly into life, with smartphones serving as the soggy gauze in between. Who knows, maybe she'll spark a movement toward healthier work practices among other big companies, or at least among their executives: PepsiCo chair Indra Nooyi reportedly sleeps just four hours a night.

  "It’s so wonderful to have a little silence in your life."

But there are some people who Thrive can never help. Burnout may be "civilization's disease," as Pascale Chabot described it, but it's the people toiling at the bottom rungs of that civilization who suffer most. People who earn less than $30,000 per year are far more likely to sleep less than six hours per night than those who earn more than $75,000.

  Not every book, or even every pundit, caters to every audience, though.

  At the end of her speech, Huffington took questions from the audience, which she asked them to preface by stating how many hours of sleep they get each night. (Most people said eight.)

  One man asked, "Would you agree that there's a certain group of people, a population that doesn't have the luxury, maybe a single father or mother who works two jobs, has to come home and help the children with homework, and then prepare dinner, and goes to bed every night exhausted because they have no other choice. They can't decompress, they can't unwind, because they don't have a choice. We're very fortunate here because we're in a very privileged position. But I think we have to recognize that burnout is probably in some cases unavoidable, for a certain percentage of the population."

Ideas Report 2014

Dispatches from the Aspen Ideas Festival. Full coverage.

See more from AtlanticLIVE.

  Huffington responded by citing a study that followed a cohort of workers who had been laid off from the Illinois Bell Company. Two-thirds of the workers became depressed and sick in the aftermath, but "one third thrived and went on to better jobs, to start their own businesses. Now, the same bad thing happened to all of them, they were all unemployed. But they all reacted differently."

  "So," she continued, "how we react to bad things is very dependent on how connected we are to our own strength and wisdom and peace and resilience. And that is really what I am talking about. We all have these resources in us, but a lot of the time we're not connected to them."

  Huffington moved on. A woman raised her hand and shared the story of her own burnout, at the tender age of 24, and her later realization that the thing people regret most when loved ones die is not having spent enough time with them.

  "Thank you for bringing us all together and making us think, 'Why don’t we take all our lists of 'I wish I hads' and go do them.'" she said.

  Huffington praised her for sharing her story and suggested she blog about it on the Huffington Post.

''Would You Rather Be Born Smart or Rich?'' -- Theatlantic

Would You Rather Be Born Smart or Rich?

A recent Brookings study suggests that brains and drive have more to do with lifelong success than family wealth. But there's a big catch.

Reuters

  I know, I know, you'd rather be born smart and rich (and charming, and with a lustrous head of hair, and a voice like Michael Bolton's). But if you had to choose? Chances are, your answer depends on whether you think the U.S. economy is a meritocracy—that intelligence and ambition are more important to lifelong success than the circumstances of your birth.

  A recent Brookings paper gives reasons for optimism. Over the long term, it finds, smart kids earn more than rich kids. But sadly, there's a big catch.

  The Brookings paper looked at the relationship between brains, motivation, and economic mobility among a group of youth the government began tracking in 1979. Here's the executive summary: If they were bright and driven, poor kids stood a decent chance of becoming upper-middle-class, or better. Of low-income teens who scored in the top third of test-takers on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (on the far left in green), more than 40 percent made it to the top two income quintiles by adulthood. Meanwhile, dimwitted children of affluence generally fell down the economic ladder. Among high-income teens who scored in the bottom third of AFQT takers (on the far right in orange), more than half ended up in the bottom two income quintiles.

  Brains weren't everything, of course. As the researchers put it, "in terms of mobility, it’s better to be smart, motivated, and rich, than smart, motivated, and poor." And, as the authors note, there also seemed to be a "glass floor" that kept a great many wealthy kids with "mediocre skills" from sliding into (relative) poverty.

  Nonetheless, for the teens and young adults of the late 1970s, the economy seems to have been, in at least some meaningful sense, a meritocracy.

  Now about that catch. The unfortunate truth is that, more often than not, the rich kids are the smart kids. For many years now, the single biggest gap in American education has been between the well-to-do and the poor. Thanks to the resources their families can pour into parenting, wealthy students start out academically ahead the day they walk into kindergarden, and stay ahead through their high school graduation day.

  How huge is the class divide in our classrooms? The next Brookings graph should give you a sense. It shows how pre-school, middle-school, and high-school-aged children fare on cognitive exams, such as the AFQT, depending on their family income. The trend should be pretty clear at a glance: Richer kids score higher. By their late teens, six out of every ten children from the wealthiest slice of families place among the top third of test takers; six in ten children from the poorest slice of families place among the bottom third. They're mirror images of wealth and acumen.   

  This is one key reason why the United States has such a dearth of economic mobility overall, even if our economy is nominally meritocratic. There simply aren't very many poor children with the skills to fight their way to the top. And it's why people like Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke have begun to question the idea that meritocracy is, by its nature, fair. How fair can a system really be, after all, if it's tilted so far in favor of those lucky enough to be born wealthy?

''Occupy Kindergarten: The Rich-Poor Divide Starts With Education'' -- Theatlantic

Theatlantic

  New research shows that a family's money matters ever more when it comes to their childrens' education

Reuters

 Economic class is increasingly becoming the great dividing line of American education.

  The New York Times has published a roundup of recent research showing the growing academic achievement gap between rich and poor students. It prominently features a paper by Stanford professor Sean F. Reardon, which found that, since the 1960s, the difference in test scores between affluent and underprivileged students has grown 40%, and is now twice the gap between black and white students. (Graph courtesy of the Times.)

  The children of the wealthy are pulling away from their lower-class peers -- the same way their parents are pulling away from their peers' parents. When it comes to college completion rates, the rich-poor gulf has grown by 50% since the 1980s. Upper income families are also spending vastly more on their children compared to the poor than they did 40 years ago, and spending more time as parents cultivating their intellectual development.

  It may not simply be a matter of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer -- although that certainly is a part of it. The growing differences in student achievement don't strictly mimic the way income inequality has skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century. It's actually worse than that. Today, there's a much stronger connection between income and a child's academic success than in the past. Having money is simply more important than it used to be when it comes to getting a good education. Or, as Reardon puts it, "a dollar of income...appears to buy more academic achievement than it did several decades a ago."

  Even more discouraging: The differences start early in a child's life, then linger. Reardon notes another study which found that the rich-poor achievement gap between students is already big when they start kindergarten, and doesn't change much over time. His own analysis shows a similar pattern.

  How come money is so much more important now than before, and so early in a child's development? Thank your local alpha-mom (or dad).

  We don't have definitive evidence that can tell us why income matters so much more to a child's education now than it did four decades years ago. But like many other writers, including The Atlantic's own Megan McArdle, Reardon suggests it involves a complicated interplay between wealth and culture. Well-off parents today are more able and likely to invest in their child's early education. Like I mentioned, studies show wealthy parents are spending more on their young children and paying more attention to their academic development. One paper found that by the time an upper-income kid starts school, they've spent 400 more hours on "literacy activities" than their less fortunate peers.

  We can also look at the way America now segregates itself by education. The greatest predictor of a child's academic success, even more than economic class, is still their parents' education level. But among adults, education and income are becoming more and more intertwined. College graduates couple off and use their resources to raise children who will also go on to succeed academically. When he ran the numbers, Reardon actually found that parental education couldn't explain the entire growth the academic gap between classes. But that doesn't mean it's not a factor.

  Even if we still have to tease out the reasons why, we appear to have reached a point where the children of the rich end up better educated, and more likely to succeed, simply because they're children of the rich.

「用對方法，打造孩子金頭腦」 -- 實戰教養系列

15個生活習慣?? 養出好腦力

怎麼讓小腦袋健康長智慧？吃好、睡好、多運動； 給他滿滿的愛、陪他玩耍、帶他多接觸探索自然。 這些，用心的父母都做得到。

     

鍛鍊大腦不必花大錢，其實最好的方法就在平凡不過的生活習慣和教養態度裡。一旦掌握了大腦的基本特性，澆灌以愛與適當養分，每個孩子的腦部都能健康茁壯的成長！以下綜整出專家建議從小就應該養成的十五個生活習慣，不用花大錢買閃字卡和參加大腦潛能開發班，就可以讓孩子的小腦袋健康長智慧。 習慣1 一切從吃得好開始   大腦細胞每五個月更新一次，要讓大腦有機會絕頂聰明，最容易見效的第一個方法，就是給它足夠的好營養。 有心為孩子健腦的家長，魚和魚油，是護腦必備的好食物。丹麥的研究比較了五千多名健康老人的飲食發現，一個人的飲食中魚的成分愈多，他保持記憶力的時間也就愈長。因為魚油中所含的omega-3多元不飽和脂肪酸（包括EPA與DHA）對人體有益，DHA是大腦神經細胞傳遞訊息的化學物質之一。由於人體很難透過飲食轉化合成omega-3，因此可透過食用深海大型魚類的眼窩、油脂部位，或魚油膠囊來補其不足。 台北醫學大學保健營養系教授黃士懿建議，若孩子不敢吃魚油，可在烹調過程中剪開魚油，滴入魚湯中，記住不要燜，也別久滾。若吞膠囊對孩子來說是一種壓力，多吃魚就好。 習慣2 睡得好才記得牢   剝奪嬰幼兒的睡眠，會影響他們的生理成長與認知發展。嬰幼兒特別需要大量而不被打擾的睡眠。睡眠主要有四個功能，一、修補神經元，二、複習白天所學，三、淘汰不需要的記憶，四、調節情緒。因此我們應該從現在起學會重視睡眠，就像重視營養與運動一樣。 孩子到底睡多久才夠？根據研究，新生兒每天可睡十六小時以上，學齡前兒童則至少十二小時。中央大學認知神經科學研究所副教授吳嫻指出，人在入睡約九十分鐘後會進入REM期（快速動眼期），此時腦波的活動狀況跟清醒時差不多，甚至更活躍，在這段時間，大腦會把白天學到的神經元凝固下來，具有去蕪存菁的重大意義。小嬰兒睡眠週期中，REM期比例最高，大腦會儲存重組記憶，增補神經傳導物質幫助學習。 睡眠會受到生理時鐘與生活習慣的左右，即使孩子生理上該睡了，若是睡前情緒太高亢、從事激烈運動、習慣跟大人當夜貓子，生活習慣便會擊敗生理時鐘，改變孩子的作息表。為了寶寶的成長，家長要特別用心穩定孩子的睡眠作息，早睡早起才是王道。 習慣3 運動可以增強腦力   吃好、睡好可以讓大腦維持在運轉巔峰，但運動卻能額外增進神經元細胞的快速增長，等於幫大腦多裝了好幾條記憶體。運動可以將新鮮血液帶向腦部細胞，大腦會產生多巴胺、血清素與正腎上腺素等三種神經傳導物質，誘發大腦神經元增生，多巴胺使運動的人心情愉快，血清素與情緒和記憶有直接關聯，正腎上腺素則和提升注意力有直接關係。 日本文部科學省最新研究顯示，律動遊戲課程不但可活化四～六歲幼兒的前額葉皮層，也有助於啟動幼兒的自律神經系統，促進心神安定。任何比走路還複雜的肢體技巧都需要學習，也因此為大腦帶來挑戰，寶寶剛開始會有點手忙腳亂，但隨著神經連上小腦、基底核，前額葉皮質區活躍起來，動作於是愈來愈精確。   台北體育學院運動教育研究所副教授周建智則認為，帶孩子多運動對健康好，對大腦也好，但家長卻普遍缺乏從事運動的創意，對運動強度認知也不足。 親子運動是遊戲、而不是比賽，不需要很專業正式，只要達到基本的運動強度就好。 若真受限於場地時間，夜市簡單的籃球機、棒球練習場練揮棒，以及任何想得出來、合理、不違反道德的遊戲，都可以成為鍛鍊腦力的有趣運動。假日在公園玩簡單的互相接球，都比待在家裡玩運動遊戲機的健腦效果強。 習慣4 愛孩子比學英文更要趁早   專研兒童發展的中央大學閱讀研究室研究員周育如指出，早期的安全依附是一切兒童發展的基礎，甚至可以用來預測孩子將來的成就。因為嬰幼兒的依附和探索行為幾乎可以說是一體的兩面，那些能夠與主要照顧者建立起安全依附的幼兒，通常也比較願意對周遭環境進行探索。 安全依附的孩子有較多的探索行為，愈多的探索意味著與環境有愈多的互動，愈多的互動使孩子的腦神經連結愈複雜愈緊密，孩子當然也就愈聰明優秀。 周育如特別強調，情緒發展有所謂的「情緒窗口（emotional window）」，意思是說嬰兒期和學步期是情緒發展的關鍵期，而這個窗口是人類所有發展中最早關閉的。因此為人父母應對此有所警覺，愛孩子比學英文更要趁早，不要等到來不及了才後悔。 習慣5 遊戲是最好的心智挑戰   過去人們一直以為孩子遊戲時大腦在休息，但最新發現是，遊戲的角色扮演和想像力可以幫助他們建構抽象思考能力，有助於增進學科表現。 《教養大震撼》一書指出，抽象思考能力是掌握現實與抽象符號之間的連結，每個學科都用得上。而孩子在扮演遊戲中把一張書桌和幾把椅子想像成消防車，大腦就學會如何把抽象符號和其他元素串連起來，等於經歷了一場高階抽象思考過程。 腦神經科學家也認為，遊戲是最好的心智挑戰。當一個小男孩專注玩積木，進入了平靜忘我的境界，大腦正在經歷一段與他心智能力相合的挑戰，這也是大腦最活躍、最有創造力的瞬間。 周育如指出，光「玩」並不算真正的心智挑戰，家長或老師應該提供比孩子的能力稍微難一點、但又足以達成的挑戰，大腦會經歷了一段平衡、失衡又平衡的過程，神經元又走出一條以往不曾通過的新路。   周育如強調，其實孩子真正的喜悅不是成為超齡小天才，而是完成他這個年紀所能做的偉大事情，真正的滿足是來自於對手邊的工作盡了最大的努力。 因此，林口長庚復健科職能治療組組長黃恢濤建議，家長該做的是時時觀察陪伴孩子，確切掌握孩子的發展進程與獨特氣質，並且適時適量的給予引導，安排有趣的活動與遊戲，不予勉強或急切想要看到學習效果，否則可能早早壞了學習胃口。 習慣6 動手做過才會留下痕跡   周育如強調，孩子一出生，腦中已具備這一生要用的幾乎所有神經元，決定他智力高低的是這些神經元之間連結的密度與強韌度。 這樣的連結在嬰幼兒時期最為快速，然後到了九～十歲之間腦部開始做的是修剪的工作，把用不到的和連結不強韌的部分修剪掉，只留下最常用、連結得最強韌的部分。 決定孩子腦部神經元之間如何連結、連結的密度和強度，則是與環境互動的經驗。 尤其是那些他主動探索、主動處理過的訊息，在腦中會建立最長最強韌的連結，而被動被灌輸的經驗所建立的連結，往往是脆弱而短暫，將來很容易就被拋棄掉，這就是發展上的「用進廢退」原則。??? 所以我們拚了命塞給孩子的，最後都難逃被修剪掉的命運，反而是孩子在自發性玩耍、探索、主動閱讀中得來的經驗會被保留下來。   給時間，讓孩子動手做，也是鍛鍊大腦重要的過程。腦神經訓練師王秀園分析，大腦是為生存而存在的器官，外在環境不斷給磨練，大腦才有機會學習諸多生存技能。「一定要親自走過，才會在大腦留下痕跡」，孩子早該自己學坐捷運了，家長還每天接送；永遠匆忙的早晨，總是忙到沒耐心等孩子綁鞋帶，其實都已經剝奪了孩子建構大腦的珍貴歷程。 習慣7 正向管教教出自信的孩子   孩子在遊戲中解決問題，了解因果關係，擁有最初的成功經驗時，家長若能真誠鼓勵與讚美，孩子的臉上會出現一抹滿意的微笑。 此時，孩子的大腦神經細胞，也因為分泌了「多巴胺」這項正向情緒的神經傳導物質而微笑著。 多巴胺在期待與獎勵過程中扮演關鍵角色。滿足是學習的重要刺激，當人們專心、與自我一致、與世界和諧相處，或成功達到任務時，這種美好的感覺會引發成功的學習，並儲存在大腦。 習慣8 好奇心是大腦思考的燃料   幼教大師蒙特梭利相信所有的孩子都是小小科學家，他們熱愛觀察世界，進行「要是這樣……會怎麼樣？」的探索。初生兒和學步兒會從高腳椅上丟玩具，在洗澡時玩水，這股探索的動力隨著年紀繼續增強。   好奇心是一種不可或缺的學習驅力，像是能讓大腦機器全速運轉的核心燃料，孩子願意去思考，堅持打破砂鍋問到底，是鍛鍊腦力的最好習慣。發展分子生物學家約翰．麥迪納（John Medina），在《大腦當家》一書中強調，對孩子來說，「發現」帶來快樂，就像一種會上癮的毒品，探索創造出更多發現的需求，帶來更多快樂，這是一個直接的回饋系統。   家長可以要孩子先「猜猜看啊！」小腦袋就會進行歸納與推理。「即使猜錯也沒關係，我們的文化太注重要『對』，容易澆熄孩子的探索好奇心，」王秀園說，有時孩子會冒出很無厘頭的問題，父母更應引導孩子想得更深入，而不是阻止發問。 華盛頓大學醫學院教授史丹利．葛林斯班，在《優秀孩子的十大關鍵能力》一書中建議，最能引發幼兒好奇心的做法，是帶他去大自然中散步，在訊息豐富的環境中探索。另外，當父母願意聆聽──而非評價孩子的意見時，最能夠培養孩子的好奇心。「如果你想增進子女的好奇心，拓展他們的智能範圍，就要多多徵求他們的意見，」史丹利提醒。 習慣9 從小學習為自己負責   學步兒經常鬧脾氣，用一個簡單有力的「不」字對抗全世界，常讓家長頭痛不已。其實家長可慢慢放手，開放幾個你可以接受的選擇讓孩子自己決定，讓他從中獲得獨立、自主的權力感，也同時學會為自己負責。   一開始，父母可以提供多個選項，讓孩子從中選擇，如果孩子嘗試後，感受到自己能做決定的成就感，就會慢慢願意嘗試自己選擇。如果孩子自己選擇卻有不好的經驗，家長也不要心急，可以告訴孩子，雖然他的選擇沒有成功，但願意嘗試的勇氣很令人佩服，下次再試試看就好。重要的還是讓孩子慢慢嘗試，用他自己的節奏來發展自我。 習慣10 父母言教不如身教   「父母要以身作則」是一條亙古不變的教養守則，一九九二年義大利帕瑪大學研究團隊的研究發現「鏡像神經元」，解讀了父母的身教那麼的重要，原來跟大腦息息相關。腦中的鏡像神經元是一組可以反映外在世界的神經細胞，只要觀看別人的動作，就會在腦中重現相同動作，彷彿鏡子反射，人類透過鏡像神經元的「模仿」學習，不需透過語言，進而理解他人的行為、意圖與情緒，拉近彼此關係。   模仿是學齡前孩子重要的學習歷程，孩子早期的模仿場域是家庭，這也呼應了身教、言教、學習環境的重要性。鏡像神經元的存在也說明了品格教育的重要性。品格是長期模仿、觀察、內化的結果，是一個潛移默化的歷程，模仿對象除了父母以外，同時受到環境與經驗的影響。 尤其品格的培養是一種內隱的學習，大腦在孩子不知道的狀況下處理並儲存訊息。陽明大學附設醫院復健科醫師鄭雅薇指出，二～三歲的孩子就能展現「同理心」，但設身處地為別人著想卻是後天學習而來，若能在成長過程中讓孩子多與人互動，才能逐漸學會設身處地為人設想。 習慣11 不要讓壞習慣坐大   孩子的壞習慣很難改過來是有道理的。大腦資源地圖不時因經驗而修正改變，好習慣和壞習慣的神經迴路在其中互相爭奪地盤，想站穩腳步。 《改變是大腦的天性》指出，大腦有個特性叫「神經可塑性」，每一次做不同的活動，大腦會改變結構與神經迴路，使它更適合手邊的作業，假使某個零件壞了，其他部位還可以接手這項工作。大腦有彈性、知變通，卻也使我們某方面變得更食古不化，我們一些最頑固不能改變的毛病其實也是神經可塑性的產物。 假如我們停止使用某種心智技術，不但會忘記如何運用，連它在大腦的空間也會被其他常用的技術搶走。   當我們學會一個壞習慣，它佔據了大腦地圖的空間，每重複一次壞習慣，它又佔多一點地盤，讓好習慣更難立足，這也是為什麼戒掉一個壞習慣比學它時難上十倍，也是為何童年教育這麼重要，很多事情最好一開始就教對，不要讓壞習慣坐大，有競爭優勢了再去拔除它。 若是壞習慣已經養成，光是禁止於事無補，必須用另一個正確的行為來取代壞習慣，因此當你大聲喝止孩子說「不能做A」之後，切記補充說「應該做B」，並重複讓孩子練習。 習慣12 長期家庭壓力會傷大腦   心理學實驗證實，長期的嚴重壓力會改變行為，讓人放棄學習。一九六○年，心理學家馬丁．塞利格曼（Martin Seligman）把兩隻狗放進通電的籠子裡，接受同樣程度的電擊，有主控權的狗在通電時用鼻子壓住按鈕把電停掉，另一隻狗則是怎麼做都無效，只能哀鳴。當兩隻狗被放進新籠子裡，壓住按鈕讓電停止已經無效，原來有主控權的狗在情急之下，會跳過不高的柵欄到籠子另一邊，成功逃過電擊；原本哀鳴的狗即使到了新環境也不會想辦法逃脫，只能躺在地板上被電擊。這個極度的悲觀被稱為「習得的無助」。   當孩子長期目睹父母吵架，又無力停止或改變這個令人無助的狀態，這種失去控制權的感受會影響孩子一生很多事情。中央大學認知神經科學研究所所長洪蘭說，童年不當的責罵或受虐經驗會永遠傷害神經元的發育，家長對孩子的責罵應該更為謹慎。《大腦當家》指出，壓力太大或太久便開始傷害學習。壓力大的人數學做不好，語言處理不夠快，記憶力差，不會把過去的訊息類化到新的情境，也不會修改舊的訊息適應新的需求，更無法專注。壓力大的人在認知作業上，比壓力小的差了五○％。 習慣13 多跟孩子說話和擁抱   新生嬰兒是個大近視，他們的視力大概只能看清楚三十公分左右的距離，不能自動調整焦距，更遠或更近的物體就會變成一片模糊。造物者似乎是設計好要嬰兒把身邊愛他的人看得更清楚。因此，爸媽應常常抱寶寶，雙手環抱將他貼近胸前，有如回到子宮般安全。 跟孩子說話時記得和他四目相接。洪蘭曾說，如果不是眼睛看著孩子，面對面跟他說話，那些聲音是背景噪音，對孩子神經連結沒有什麼幫助。   美國天普大學嬰兒實驗室主任凱西．赫胥—帕賽克（Kathy Hirsh-Pasek）在《愛因斯坦不玩識字卡》中建議爸媽，談論孩子正在觀察或正在做的事情，根據孩子的談話主題增加對話內容，專家稱此為「拓展」現象。這樣一來，我們示範了剛剛他們所講的內容，還可以有更豐富、清楚的表達方式，可以不著痕跡的增加孩子的新語彙。   有些爸媽常自豪「我家有個不哭不鬧的乖寶寶」，這樣的乖寶寶卻成為幼教專家最擔心的一群，因為無論在自己家、保母家或是幼兒園，他們經常被忽略，被擺在哪裡都沒有意見。 和其他敏感型的寶寶比起來，乖寶寶不哭也不鬧，照顧者會忘記主動去和他們說話、擁抱和互動，長久下來對他們的發展有不良影響。 習慣14 睡前帶孩子回憶一天   卡通裡，愛探險的Dora和Boots每次結束一趟旅程，總會問彼此：「你最喜歡今天旅程的哪一個部分？」讓觀看者仔細回想一遍，分享自己的感想。 爸媽也可以在每天睡覺前，靜下來跟孩子聊聊今天發生了哪些事情，鼓勵孩子發表自己的想法，哪些事讓他開心、哪些事讓他傷心。回憶一天的感受，幫助孩子消化整合，紓解情緒，成為睡前儀式的一環。   諮商心理師楊文麗每天睡前都跟兩個孩子聊，鼓勵孩子今天做對了哪些事情，讚揚他們有善良而美好的性格，讓他們充滿自信而溫暖的進入夢鄉。 習慣15 建立規律的生活作息   你的孩子是不是出門前一定要做某件事？睡覺前有一定的活動程序？不少父母對幼兒這樣的「無法變通」和「龜毛」感到困擾與不耐煩。   幼兒發展專家李坤珊提醒，固定的生活時間表是幼兒成長過程中，安全感的重要來源。成人的生活很複雜，充滿變化，成人可以隨時應變調整生活程序，但幼兒還不具有時間概念，他們唯一能掌握的就是此時此刻，所以他們要知道下一步要做什麼，依靠生活中的固定事件來掌握未來。   因此李坤珊建議，家長要盡全力使幼兒的生活作息維持一定的規律，讓生活中的大小事情依循一定的程序。這些固定的程序，從開始到結束，一個也不能少，少了一個步驟就會讓他們焦躁不安。讓孩子放心的等待，有信心的期待，這就是安全感。孩子愈能掌握外在世界的互動方式和規律，愈能預測外在世界的變動，就愈覺得自己有能力，因為他們將慢慢的學會如何處世。   每個家長都希望自己的孩子有個頭好壯壯的腦，但所有權威性的研究都一致指出，培養愛學習的好大腦，家長該做的不是送孩子去全腦補習班，而是吃好、睡好、多運動；好好愛他、陪他玩、讀書給他聽，以及多帶他去接觸探索自然。每一件事，都不需花大錢，用心的父母都做得到。   時時提醒自己「十五個養出好腦力的生活習慣」，爸爸媽媽就能與「腦時代」同步，做個與時俱進的好父母。