The immediately preceding post suggested a mechanism for building a cognitive reserve to decrease the risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Although it is frequently said that Alzheimer’s disease cannot be prevented or cured, there have been autopsies done of people whose brains had defining amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles required for a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s, but who never exhibited any of the behavioral or cognitive symptoms. So there have been individuals who had Alzheimer’s, but who never knew that they had the disease! The explanation for these individuals is that they had built up a cognitive reserve.
The healthy memory post “Cognitive Activity and the Risk of Alzheimer’s Disease” summarizes a study in which reported cognitive activity was the best predictor of a decreased risk for Alzheimer’s. This finding held even when the factors of educational level and job prestige were statistically controlled. The post “How Cognitive Activity Decreases the Risk of Alzheimer’s” proposed a mechanism to identify how cognitive activity decreases the risk of Alzheimer’s.
Our brains are working constantly even when we sleep. So how can the type of cognitive activity that builds this cognitive reserve be identified? This explanation depends upon understanding Kahneman’s Two Process Theory of Cognition. This theory was expanded upon in Kahneman’s best selling book, “Thinking Fast and Slow.” System 1 is fast and is called intuition. System 1 needs to be fast so we can process language and make the fast decisions we need to make everyday. System 1 is also the seat of our emotions. System 2 is called reasoning and corresponds loosely to what we mean by thinking. System 2 requires mental effort and our attentional processes. Stanovich has elaborated System 2 in the development of a more comprehensive intelligence quotient. But for our purposes, this discussion included Stanovich’s concept as it involves even more thinking and attentional processes.
System 1 is fast because it uses defaults to expedite processing with minimal cognitive resources. Whenever we read or hear something that corresponds to our beliefs or expectations only System 1 is involved. However, one of the responsibilities of System 2 is to monitor System 1 processes to check for erroneous processing. Whenever we hear or read something that does not correspond to our beliefs, there is an identifiable response in the brain, which signals the initiation of System 2 processes. System 2 can decide to curtail further processing and to move on, or to engage in a more thorough process of memory search, checking for logical contradictions, and so on. All of this is thinking and requires cognitive effort.
Similarly when we are learning new information or a skill, System 2 is engaged. This is why learning can be frustrating and demanding. System 2 stays engaged until learning begins and then gradually disengages until it becomes an almost automatic System 1 process. This learning is a matter of engaging different parts of the brain, establishing new neural pathways. It is also likely that old neural pathways are reactivated.
So System 2 processing establishes new neural pathways and reactivates related previous neural pathways. So regardless of what happens with respect to amyloid plaque or neurofibrillary tangles, the brain remains healthy and our memories remain healthy and can continue to grow cognitively..
When we are doing System 1 processing our brains are effectively on cruise control. When we are doing System 2 processing we are engaged in cognitively effortful processing and are thinking. But is there a way to identify System 2 processing? Does System 2 processing have a signature?
It is possible that there is. Research has been done in which statements are played to research participants while their brains are being monitored. When a statement is presented with which a subject disagrees, there is a noticeable response. Perhaps this response could be used as a signature for System 2.
Even if this works, there is an implementation problem, How would this be done? It might be possible to evaluate different cognitive processes with respect to the amount of effortful processing. This could be an area of research that would generate a large volume of research papers with the concomitant reward of faculty tenure.
Perhaps a simpler way would be to compare Trump Voters against those who did not vote for Trump. The respective samples would be monitored to see how many suffered from Alzheimer’s at what ages. For HM, the only conceivable way that individuals could vote for Trump would be to do very little, if any, System 2 processing regarding him.
A related approach would be to compare viewers of Fox news against a control sample who did not watch Fox news. Both groups would be tracked to see who fell ill with Alzheimer’s at what age. The appeal of Fox news is that it is designed to cater to the biases of viewers and to minimize any disturbing or conflicting news. It can be viewed in cruise control rarely, if ever, having to engage in System 2 processing. This is probably why Fox news is so popular—it requires little, if any, cognitive effort. On the other hand those poor viewers of unbalanced news have to engage in System 2 processes to ascertain credibility levels for their news. The prediction would be for higher and earlier incidences of Alzheimer’s for Fox News viewers.
© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.