Showing posts with label Cognition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cognition. Show all posts

Dec 7, 2019

Why do kids misbehave--and why do we misbehave, too?

Haha, it’s a trick question. Kids don’t misbehave. And neither do we adults.
They can’t. We can’t. Kids and adults can only do what’s most rewarding.
What’s wrong with doing what’s most rewarding?

We do what our systems let us do

If we’re trying to do fucked up things, it’s because our reward systems are fucked up. If we do it in a fucked up way, it’s because our operating systems are fucked up.
Are we misbehaving?
Is a computer misbehaving if it’s programmed wrong?

Initial programming

Yeah, I know. You’re not a computer. Neither am I. I’ll grant that we develop some agency as we grow to adulthood.
But consider how we develop.
We’re initially programmed and conditioned by biology. Can’t argue with that, can you? And biology has fitted us out with a ton of cognitive errors and biases. We know that.
We’re later educated and conditioned by our parents and the rest of society. That goes on for years before there’s much room for personal agency.
Assuming a healthy environment, we’re taught mostly good stuff. But our parents and the environment are not perfect, and their teaching methods are not perfect. So some of what we learn is wrong—either because they taught us wrong or they tried to teach us right, but we got it wrong.

Self-programming

Eventually, we modify our own code.
Life presents us with problems that we haven’t been taught to solve — no fault to our parents, or society. Our environment can’t teach us everything. We have to use the tools that we have to generate new knowledge and add to our own code. We might discover errors in what we’ve been taught and have to correct the errors.
We use new knowledge to modify our own code.
How do we generate that new knowledge?
We can only use the tools we have. We guess at solutions. We use the knowledge (or misunderstandings) we’ve been given and try to figure out theories from the raw data of experience. We might seek out teachers and try to learn what they might teach us.
With our flawed biology and our imperfect prior knowledge, some of what we guess will be wrong, and some of what we conclude will be wrong. Sometimes we’ll choose bad teachers who will introduce new errors.
We do the best we can.
But we’ll still have cognitive errors and data errors, including errors in our reward systems

How do we fix the errors that remain?

We can’t fix errors unless:
  1. We’ve learned how to detect errors
  2. We acquired a toolbox filled with ways to analyze and fix errors
  3. We find that detecting them, finding them, and fixing them is rewarding

We do what’s rewarding, no matter what

Whether we fix your cognitive errors or not, we’ll still do what’s most rewarding.
If we don’t fix our errors, then what’s most rewarding may be fucked up.
Too bad.

Following my own rewards

Right now. I’m writing this because it’s the most rewarding thing that I can do at this moment. That’s the way my reward system happens to be wired.
I might stop writing before I post this.
And I’ve done that, lots of times, because my reward system was fucked up.
But I’ve been hard at work detecting and fixing errors in my reward system—and MyOS
I will only stop writing if this is no longer rewarding enough for me to continue—or if something else becomes more rewarding.
Otherwise, I have no choice. I’m going to finish this and post it.
And if I don’t, I know what to do. I’m going to find and fix the cognitive errors that stand in the way of posting it.
And I will do that because finding and fixing those errors is also rewarding.
QED
Edit: see! I did.
​

Oct 18, 2019

Applied mindtravel--a how-to guide

A while back I wrote this post: Mindscapes and mindtravel
Today I discovered I’d written a how-to guide and never published it.
Easily fixed.

Building the itinerary

Get a notebook (or start a document).
Whenever you have a moment of feeling really good, record it in the notebook. Date, time, something memorable about it. Give it a name. Whatever might help you get back there easily.
Once in a while, remember some great places you’ve been. Add it to your list of places.

Imaginary destinations

You can create imaginary destinations, too.
Invent them and put them in your notebook and travel to them just as you can to “real” ones. Maybe you’ve got some already. I’ve got a few.
Hey, it’s your mind, after all, and you get to decide what in your mind you want to call real.
Since it’s all imaginary anyway, you get to choose.

Practice

Periodically, pull out your notebook or list and practice mind-traveling back to those places and times.

Mindtravel to safety

Once you’re good a mindtravelling, you can mindtravel to safe places from shitty places.
Here:
  1. Remember you can mindtravel
  2. Remember a good place to go to—or pull out your notebook
  3. Mindtravel there.
  4. Enjoy the experience and then mind-travel to another and another.
  5. Do that until you feel like it’s unlikely you’re going to be being snapped back to the shitty place
Then carry on.

A historical note

I found a draft of this post my StackEdit files.
Did I post it? Or didn’t I?
East way to find out. Search the blog. Turns out I posted something like it:
Mindscapes and mindtravel
Complete it or delete it, right?
And then a victory lap.
​

Feb 5, 2019

L-serine serine-dipity

Label: L-Serine serindipity?

TL;DR

Aging brains always get worse, and they get worse faster if we don’t take action. Ever since I read “The Brain that Changes Itself”, I’ve been taking action.
L-serine is an inexpensive FDA approved food supplement that may have neuroprotective effects for normal aging and people at risk for Alzheimer’s. It’s currently in Phase II clinical trial due to complete in August. But why wait? You can get it on Amazon in bulk.
Dale Bredesen, MD is a researcher with 224 peer-reviewed papers on PubMed and book called “The End Of Alzheimer’s” and a website that provides a program for assessing and improving cognitive health—including but not limited to Alzheimer’s. He claims that he has reversed Alzheimer’s and other forms of cognitive decline in many patients. Maybe he has.
As aging changes my brain in unavoidable ways, I check my cognitive ability with interest. Hey, I can’t remember that name. I think. How interesting! I wonder how I can get it back. Whenever I forget something, I see it as an opportunity to learn something about my brain.
Bobbi, on the other hand, checks hers with worry approaching terror. Her Dad died (younger than she now is) with advanced Alzheimer’s disease. Seeing him was somewhere between tragic and horrific. Closer to horrific, actually.
Out of general fascination with all things science and to make sure that we both are doing the best we can reasonably do to protect our brains I dive into the literature on cognitive health periodically.

The state of the literature

ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is a neurodegenerative disease. It’s not Alzheimer’s, but it’s mentioned in the same breath in lots of research
Here’s an article from Brain Chemistry Labs that makes the connection:
Neurodegenerative diseases all share a common problem, proteins accumulate in the brain. We have found that an environmental neurotoxin can trigger two kinds of protein build up known as brain tangles and amyloid plaques.
So what can be done about it?
The Institute for Ethnomedicine discovered the dietary amino acid L-serine as a possible new ALS drug through careful studies of the mechanisms of protein misfolding
The principal researcher at the Institute is Paul Cox. This long, long article in Fortune details his research. Well worth the read:
Here’s what we now think is astonishing about ­L-serine,” Cox said. “It appears to be neuroprotective against all possible protein misfolding. It basically turns on a system in our brains that looks for unfolded proteins and is quickly poised to act on them.”
They have mouse models, in vitro experiments to support their research. Ethnological investigation of the Ogimi, a group on the island of Okinawa backs the hypothesis. The Ogimi are extraordinary long-lived people who don’t seem to suffer much cognitive decline.
This peer reviewed paper summarizes some of their research.
Our hypothesis that the high l-serine content of the Ogimi diet is related to the paucity of tangle diseases among villagers is buttressed by in vivo results with non-human primates where dietary l-serine slowed development of neurofibrillary tangles and β-amyloid plaques by up to 85% and a human clinical trial finding that l-serine at 15 grams/day twice daily slows functional decline in ALS patients. Analysis of the Ogimi diet suggests that l-serine should be evaluated for therapeutic potential as a neuroprotective agent.
This article in Pharmacy Times summarizes research findings, and points to a Phase I trial to assess safety. The trial demonstrated safety (and also reported significant improvements in the people with ALS.
Astrocytes in the human body produce L-serine, and the average American diet consists of about 3.5 grams of L-serine a day. The FDA states L-serine is generally regarded as safe, as long as it consists of no more than 8.4% of total protein in the diet (CFR Title 21 Section 17.320.18). A 6-month phase I randomized double-blind (pharmacist unblinded) trial was conducted to assess safety of doses 0.5, 2.5, 7.5, and 15g twice a day.
There’s now a Phase II trial in progress, due to report in August.
15 grams of L-Serine (15 gummies containing 1g of L-serine) orally twice daily for 246 days
So Bobbi and I are doing our own non-double-blinded non-placebo-controlled study of l-serine. I ordered 500 g from Amazon, and we’re each taking 15 g twice a day.
I’m not a person who goes for vitamin and food fads, but the research here seems solid and promising, and what the hell else are we going to do with our money?
I now buy this supplement from here
​

Jul 10, 2018

Russell conjugation and Eric Weinstein

Daniel turned me on to Eric Weinstein and I’ve been mainlining his ideas for the past dozen hours. The guy is brilliant. See note at bottom of the post.
Discursions out of the way, here’s what I came here to write about. It’s from Eric Weinstein’s answer to the Edge question for 2017 “What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known.”
His answer is “Russell Conjugation.” What? I never heard of it, either. But I’d seen the concept in passing, and Wikipedia has heard of it too. Of course.
The example I’ve come across:
I am firm, You are obstinate, He is a pig-headed fool.
Here’s a sentence from his article with so much packed in it that I could write a long essay about every phrase. Assuming that I can get myself to write anything at all.
In an era in which anyone can publish anything, the quest to control information has largely been lost by institutions, with a race on to weaponize empathy by understanding its basis in linguistics and tweaking the social media algorithms which now present our world to us accordingly. As the theory goes, it is not that we don’t have our own opinions so much as that we have too many contradictory ones, and it is generally our emotional state alone which determines on which ones we will predicate action or inaction.
What leaps out is the idea that people are working to weaponize empathy. And that’s because we don't have our own opinions so much as that we have too many contradictory ones.
That’s because of a bug in the human mental machinery. We think that we take in facts and then evaluate them. But research tells us otherwise. There are a couple of mechanisms at work. One is demonstrated in Daniel Gilbert’s work, which I wrote about here. His research concludes that we start by believing what we read (or hear) before we analytically decide that something is wrong. His paper is “You can’t not believe everything you read.pdf).”
But if the idea gets activated and the annotation “this is a false idea” is not activated, then we will act as though we believe what have decided we don’t believe.
To compound the problem, we can be convinced that things that are false are true if we’re exposed to powerful enough arguments. In this post I wrote about “Epistemic Learned Helplessness” a post in which Scott Alexander argues that we’re not necessarily right to accept even the best rational arguments because anyone who is not expert in an area can be convinced by someone who is an expert. Convinced, in this case, is a proxy for “being overwhelmed by verifiable facts that support an argument that is, in fact, flawed, but you don’t know enough to see the flaws.”
So taking these together: every conclusion we’re exposed to is stored in our minds as true along with its supporting arguments, also labeled true. even if our System 2 has concluded (as a result of other arguments and facts labeled “true” whether or not they are) that they are not true. “Weaponizing empathy” exploits yet another a bug in our cognitive apparatus that causes us to override the System 2 evaluation (“this is wrong”) with the emotional overlay “this feels right.”
There’s more to his Edge answer, and I’ll maybe write more later. And much more to the whole idea of gaming the mental systems of others.
Also for future reference: In looking for a link to his homepage or something, I found a brilliant idea on international migration summarized on his site and with a paper published in full in full here. In case I die or ADD strikes me before I write my review of the article, those are the links.
​

Jul 5, 2018

Fast talkers of America

Young people talk faster than old people. They can also listen faster. Trust me. I know. I am an old person and most of the peeps that I hang with are old. I notice this. It presents a problem. And an opportunity.
Years ago I read Norman Doidge’s book, “The brain that changes itself.” The book is about brain plasticity. His explanation of the changes in brains of older people changed the trajectory of my life. Brains are adaptable, but they are also lazy. They will try to get away with as little work as the environment and inner drives will allow. Older people are in comfortable ruts (they might call them ‘grooves’, but that’s just a nice name for a rut) so their brains optimize to do the same stuff, with less thinking. Young people are driven to reproduce and that drive has consequences.
The drive to reproduce includes a drive to have sex. To have sex you need a partner—or several. To get a partner you need to make yourself attractive so that partners will choose you, or you need to gain power so you can take what you want. To do either takes both physical and mental work.
People are wired to choose partners who show evidence of good genes so they can pass them to their offspring. It’s not that people know genetics. It’s just the wiring. Physical beauty is evidence of good genes. Evidence of intelligence also points toward good genes, so apart from obvious physical attributes both men and women tend to be attracted to people who show wit, knowledge, creativity, problem-solving ability, or who have wealth and social status, all of which good genes. So people who want to reproduce are driven to make the most of their cognitive resources.
Most old people aren’t into making more babies and even though some still like sex it’s not as central to life as it once was. So the consequent drive to improve one’s mind is gone. Not to say there are no old people who want to improve themselves—or have mindless sex. Some do, I’m sure. But I’m also certain that most don’t.
Most people, Doidge says, spend the first 30 years of their lives driven to learn new things, and the rest of their lives performing that which they have learned and making small additions to their store of knowledge. Why not? At thirty most have found a mate and a career with enough momentum. They continue to learn, but the ratio of new things learned to old things regurgitated leans further toward regurgitation the older one gets.
I’m no longer as motivated to get laid as I once was. Even at 75, I can imagine scoring once in a while if I worked at it—but it would either a lot of effort, a lot of money, or a dramatic reduction in standards. I like what I’ve got, and I don’t see enough potential gain to reward the work or the money. And lowering my standards—which I value—is also a crappy idea.
Since sex is not going to drive me to self-improve I’ve had to find other ways to challenge my lazy brain to cognitive excellence. Doidge’s book made me aware of a lot of lazy cognitive habits that I’d fallen into, and I’ve taken steps to fight them. The “old person’s walk”—feet spread, eyes down, small, shuffling steps—is an easy habit. Old people walk that way for physical reasons—arthritis and loss of flexibility—but also for cognitive reasons. Watching your feet while you walk slowly is less cognitively demanding than walking fast with your head up. With head up, you have to look for unevennesses in the surface, calculate when that thing you saw in front of you will appear underfoot, and then adjust your gait. With head down, and slowly, none of that. Likewise, it’s harder to balance yourself than to shuffle side to side. And so on.
When I listen to online spoken content—say a video on YouTube or a podcast—I crank the speed up. If it’s younger, faster-talking speaker or they have an unfamiliar accent then 1.25x. If it’s an older, slower-talking speaker, then I’m all the way to 2.0x.
When I’m with younger people I focus on keeping up and on talking as fast as I can—because they can take it. When with older people I push as far as my audience will let me.
I am trying to get into the habit of composing text (like this blog post) using Google’s voice typing. It’s hard, and my brain resists it. Fuck you, brain. I’m going to keep working at it.
The lesson that I keep forgetting (thanks, old brain) and re-learning (thanks, whatever) is that discomfort is a feature and not a bug. It might be a sign of something gone wrong, but it might also be a sign of something going right. So the rule is: if it’s uncomfortable, don’t immediately change. See if it’s a good discomfort or bad, and act accordingly.
​

Jun 30, 2018

Cognitive surplus/ cognitive deficit/ cognitive decline

TL;DR I used to run a cognitive surplus (I’ll define that later. But you get the idea) As I get older the surplus decreases, and I frequently run deficits. I still like my present mind and I would not trade what passes for wisdom for a faster CPU. But this is what’s likely to happen, youngsters, as your cognitive surplus turns to a deficit. Better get ready.

Cognitive surplus

Imagine, having a conversation. If the conversation is superficial, it can be done automatically. If not, then it requires thinking mixed with speaking and understanding mixed with listening. Let’s concentrate on the thinking and speaking part because that’s what people care about and mostly do.
Thinking and speaking impose a cognitive load. The load for speaking is usually less than the load for thinking. People can think faster than they can translate their thoughts into words. So the rate at which a participant carries out their part of the conversation is limited by the rate at which they can speak. The if the cognitive resources that someone needs to keep their speech buffers filled are greater than the cognitive resources that are available, the difference between supply and demand is cognitive surplus.
Cognitive surplus varies throughout a conversation. It also varies across conversations based on the topic and currently available cognitive capacity. Stress lowers capacity, and ceteris paribus drops the surplus. (By the way, I always get ceteris paribus and mutatis mutandis confused. Now I won’t. But that’s another story) A complex topic requires more capacity, and ceteris paribus lowers surplus. A conversational counterpart with a different background or a different epistemological frame of reference topic requires more capacity, and ceteris paribus lowers surplus.
(OK, gonna quit with the ceteris paribus for the rest)
When younger I operated with a considerable surplus (thanks Mom and Dad for the good genes.) I could use some of my surplus to carry out another activity. In my prime could carry out a challenging conversation while doing my physics homework. Then I couldn’t do that. But I could not, but I could carry on a conversation while doing something like carrying out an unfamiliar repair. Then I couldn’t do that. Now I can talk while driving but only if the conversation is not too demanding and if there’s not much traffic.
The days of high surpluses are gone!
Today, If I’m following a recipe and someone asks me a question I can’t answer it. I put up my hand and wait until I’ve reached an undemanding part of the recipe, or I use the little surplus I have (after accounting for the small cognitive load of cooking and my degraded capacity) to formulate a response and speak it.

Cognitive deficit and changes in demand

Cognitive deficit Is the opposite of cognitive surplus. It is the gap between the amount of cognitive capacity needed for a task and the amount that is available.
Automation lowers cognitive demand. Social protocols (“How are you?” “Good?” “How about you?” “Fine” “And the family….”) are almost entirely automated, and thus largely undemanding My wife’s father had advanced Alzheimer’s when he died. Social protocols were the last thing to go. I remember him looking at his newborn daughter and laughing, “Look at her! She’s got less hair than me!” He looked like a functioning human being. But if he turned away and turned back, he’d say the same thing again, in the same way.
If I think about something in advance, the cognitive work that I’ve done goes into work-in-process inventory. The cognitive demand required to turn ideas that are in inventory into ideas that are finished enough to be expressible is lower than the cognitive demand required to produce an idea from raw data and rules for reasoning.
Listening to someone dramatically raises cognitive demand. That explains why people try to avoid listening. Most time when someone is speaking, people are working on building their response and not deeply considering what’s being said. When someone goes into cognitive deficit when speaking their peace, they need time to recover—and prepare their rejoinder. No time to listen, because listening does not give you recovery time. Worse, it’s more demanding to understand someone else’s ideas and fit them into your own intellectual framework. It’s far easier to take ideas that you have in inventory and doing the minimum work required to adapt them to the conversational context.

Writing this post

I created the first draft of this post using my mobile phone and Google’s “voice typing” capability. My speech was punctuated by pauses. Where my ideas were already well formed because I’d done some thinking and put those ideas into work-in-process inventory, I was able to speak whole sentences or more. When I was filling in gaps, the pauses were longer. There were long periods of silence when I had to build cognitive surplus and inventory and then fluidly translate those ideas into words.
There are trade-offs between using voice typing and finger typing. Voice typing is harder. It puts me in cognitive deficit more easily. To keep up my speech rate I have to focus and minimize distractions—both mental and physicals.
Finger typing is slower. I can’t type as fast as I can think, so I generate a substantial cognitive surplus. I might use that surplus to think more deeply, and sometimes I believe I do that. I might also use some of it to focus on my fingers and keep my typing rate up. But most of the time I some of that surplus on distractions. I look at what I have already written and imagine ways to improve a sentence or paragraph. That might improve the quality of my product at a cost to its quantity and to my satisfaction.
I want those ideas out of my head and onto the page.
So voice typing it is.
​

Jan 2, 2013

Cognitive decline

The signs were all around me. I just had to look. Which I didn't do until I read Normal Doidge's book The Brain That Changes Itself. 

Wake up call!

Chapter 7, Rejuvenation, changed my life. Doidge talks about the natural processes that cause and that can accelerate the inevitable cognitive decline that accompanies the inevitable process of aging.  To summarize what I've learned in this book and others I read later:
You're always learning something. You never stop learning. But you're either learning how to get better, or you're learning how to get worse.
Young people are driven to use up energy, take risks, and learn how to get better. When I walked to kindergarten with my grandson Luke, he didn't walk. He ran, skipped and hopped. He saw some large rocks along the side of the road, and instead of walking, like a "normal person" he jumped onto the first rock and jumped from rock to rock--like a normal kid. That kid-drive kept him learning how to move his changing body better, and improving his balance. Normal young people like Luke create unnecessary challenges, then use the challenges to drive them to improve.

Old people like me are driven to conserve energy, avoid risks, and so we learn how to get worse. When I walked with Luke to school I didn't think of jumping from rock to rock--until I saw him doing it, and realized what he was learning and what I was learning. I was learning that I didn't need to improve the complex machinery of my vestibular system to help me keep my balance; I learned that there were muscles  I didn't need to know how to operate, and I didn't need my proprioceptors tuned up. I was teaching myself to be old.

Our brains tell us do that. You could call brains efficient, but if you do you're just sucking up to your brain, and for no good reason. Our brains are not efficient. They are lazy. A brain figures out how to an acceptable result with the least effort. It doesn't do anything it doesn't have to do.

When you've got an immature brain in an immature body, surrounded by adults and older kids who can do more than you can, your brain tells you that in order to survive you have to LEARN! When society puts kids in situations in which they compete with other kids, then in order to survive they have to LEARN! But eventually you find a niche and survival is no longer a problem, and you don't have to keep learning to catch up. You can live well with what you already know.

When a brain figures that out, then you're on your way down hill. Once it finds out that it can get just about the same result with less work, it does less work. When it figures out that it doesn't need a certain neural network because the skill that the network confers is no longer needed, it decommits the neurons. The process goes on throughout our lives. During the growing phase, neural networks are trimmed to find more efficient networks and to leave space for new learning. During the growing old phase, the old networks are trimmed and replaced by not much.

The PBS show based on Doidge's book gives a compelling example of skill-deaquisition and cognitive decline in the aging. It shows us an old person walking the classic old person walk: legs spread apart for a more stable platform; head down, looking at the feet to make sure that there are no missteps; small stiff movements to avoid imbalance and using unnecessary muscles. Old people don't walk that way simply because they have to: they walk that way because they learn to. And the show explains how that comes about.

When babies stumble they don't slow down; they're driven to compete and to do that they need to walk and then run and keep up their speed. They're driven to learn how to go faster. When young kids stumble, they pick themselves up and learn to do it better. Tripping and falling aren't disasters: they're a sign that more practice is needed. Sometimes it's something to laugh about.

Later on, skills are maintained, and no longer improved. So what if you slow down a litle? As long as you're doing not much worse than your peers, you're doing fine. An occasional tumble is no laughing matter, but youthful bodies heal fast enough, so there's nothing to be concerned about. Skills decline, but slowly.

When people grow old enough and stumble they don't laugh. They've hurt themselves; they heal slowly, and they worry. So they teach themselves a different set of lessons; that they need to slow down; that they can avoid stumbles by spreading their feet by looking down rather than up, and by minimizing the time when one is in a state of dynamic imbalance by taking small stiff steps. Arthritis helps. If normal movement leads to pain--even a little pain--you stop moving normally, and start moving like an old person.

Old people teach themselves to be older than they need to be.

After reading Doidge's book at age sixty-something I realized that I was teaching myself to act old. I realized that I had learned to walk down stairs differently than young people. They moved at a brisk pace, kept their heads up, occasionally glancing down to check that where their brains said they were was actually where they were. And they often walked down the center of the staircase. Sometimes they took a couple of steps at a time. I was starting to walk down stairs more slowly, with my eyes down, occasionally looking up to avoid bumping into someone and holding the handrail to keep from falling. The more I did it, the more my brain learned I could get away with it. Unlike younger people, I was in no hurry.

I was teaching myself to act old.

I decided to force myself to reverse the process. It was hard. When I took a step or two without looking at my feet I could feel the adrenaline rushing. I felt anxiety bordering on fear. I had to fight to keep my eyes up. Then after a while, as I retrained my brain it got easier.

This is not just physical decline, I realized. Sure, part of it is physical, but it's cognitive decline as well. When I was in my thirties I used to run through the woods, head up, checking my feet rarely. My brain was good enough to process my visual input, build a model of the trail I was running, compute when the root that I had seen in front of me was about to be underneath my feet, and take a longer or shorter step, avoiding a stumble. Now that's too much computing for me, and the cost of a brittle-boned mistake is too high to risk. I don't run the way I used to because my arthritic
knees won't allow it. But I also don't do it because my brain won't support me.

Doidge's book made me realize the vital importance of attention. Attention is a limited resource; controlling attention is a learned skill. Kids have so much attention that they don't have to control it. They have enough so that new skills are learned effortlessly. Older people have less attention and have to focus the attention that remains to learn and to perform. It gets harder to control it when you don't practice, and the the lazy brains of aging people discover that they can get by without paying much attention. Every time they slide by they learn that they can pay even less attention. And that accelerates their spiral of decline.

I see my waning ability to pay attention in small ways and large. "What did I just say?" my wife might have asked, years ago, when she thought I wasn't paying attention. Well, I wasn't paying enough attention to have listened to and understood what she had said. But I had enough excess attention to have recorded the last thirty seconds of speech. I could access it, recite it back and pretend that I had been listening. Now I can't do that. When she asks "What did I just say?" I have no idea.

Back in the day when I was aware that someone was saying something of interest, I could access a recording of what I had missed, for context. No longer.

I see lots of other signs of cognitive decline, now that I know what's happening, and I'm doing the only thing that I can do: I fight back.

Writing this blog is one way of fighting back. It takes a lot of attention to write 1300 words in a sitting. Forcing my head up when I'm walking down stairs is a way of fighting back. Getting up on the rocks with Luke is a way of fighting back.

The bad thing is that it's a losing battle.

The good thing is that the battle's fun to fight.

Update: 4 years later. Sometimes it's fun to fight. Sometimes it sucks. Note to self: since it's bound to be a losing battle, work harder at making losing fun.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Pages