Talk:Triune brain

This article is biased

The article is biased toward a paradigm shift away from discussion of the triune brain hypothesis without going into enough pros and cons of the hypothesis. Birds are not humans. Birds are very evolved due to the limited lifespans, etc. etc.. Typical outside bird lives like 2years? That means they've got to spread their genes A LOT more often, have more children, have potentially more genetic mutations than humans ever would, thus evolve more often to have significantly different neuroanatomy, etc.. etc.. Neuroanatomically, there are some behavioral and animal differences between humans and EVERYTHING ELSE. It's a decent model when applied to humans, I think. A quick search on parrots (they live a long time) shows that they eat meat. They might have some r-complex stuff involved. --Cyberman (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Clotaire Rapaille

I removed this paragraph from the "Triune Brain" article:

Market Researcher Clotaire Rapaille makes reference to the R-Complex in his book The Culture Code. He claims that the understanding of consumer behavior lies within the "Reptilian Brain" (also known as the unconscious). Rapaille believes that when consumers make decisions, the "Reptilian Brain" always wins .

Rapaille's work is very peripheral with regard to the subject of the article. A Google search for "reptilian brain" yielded over 80,000 hits. The idea that the limbic system and the neocortex are conscious and only the reptilian brain isn't is naive. It's obvious that tremendous amounts of processing by all the psychic functions takes place below the level of conscious awareness. For example, when one retrieves the words to express an idea there is no direct awareness of the process by which the individual words are selected. And Rapaille's theory is simplistic and nonempirical. Kevin Langdon (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

References

obsolescence?

If the triune brain theory has been largely abandoned by researchers, can someone insert a note about what models of the brain have succeeded it? I'm interested and know fairly little about the subject.

Propaganda until I see some original sources in paper. --Cyberman (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It's funny to think that the model is obsolete. I think it's real.--186.61.243.225 (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want to say this is a contemporary theory, please cite a contemporary RS that says so (what you think is not a RS). MrDemeanour (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Other brain models?

Reiterating the need for information about models which replaced the triune brain. If none have been developed please share that as well. Powered by the Human Spirit 20:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The excellent work of Nieuwenhuys and Puelles on the evolution-based reevaluation of classical neuromorphology should be referred to, somewhere in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.227.105 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC) 

References

Paul Patton

I am a comparative neuroscientist. I added some new material describing the claims of the triune brain hypothesis more clearly, and a new section explaining how subsequent developments in comparative neuroanatomy and animal behavior have rendered the model outdated in the eyes of comparative evolutionary neuroscientists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.48.157 (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the statements made in part 6 of this article (Continuing popular interest in the model) are contradicted by the referenced evidence cited in part 5 (Current status of the model). I think that part 6 should either be removed or modified to discuss solely the persistence of the triune brain model in popular culture despite its rejection by most members of the relevant scientific community. Any comments or objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.81.209 (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Triune & Quadrune Mind models

As a recently retired engineer/physicist, I was particularly pleased to see the quote by statistician George E. P. Box "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful."

In my former professional world, there are various types of “models.” Some models are intended to display the physical characteristics of the thing or concept to be communicated (e.g. a subscale model train, a clay mockup of a new car, an anatomically accurate brain model). Some models are intended to describe the functional / behavioral characteristics of the thing or concept to be communicated (e.g. a macroeconomic model, a system model of an electrical transmission grid, a mathematical equation such as F= ma, a mind model, etc.). A neurosurgeon strives to be anatomically (physically) correct; a psychologist strives to be behaviorally (functionally) correct. Both use models - different models. None of these models are “real” instances. All help to communicate a specific perspective and provide a better understanding of our universe. All models have limited application.

McClean did not make a convincing mapping of his functional model of the mind into today’s physical model of the brain. Whether or not his Triune functional model accurately represents the observed behavior of evolving species is probably worth further investigation. Anyone going down that road of investigation would want to include Michael Dowd”s (“Thank God for Evolution”) proposed Quadrune Mind functional model for human behavior – not to be confused with a neurological map/model of the brain. Mahetrick (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Triune Theory is useful

Just google a picture of an atom with electrons orbiting in perfect circles. It is highly inaccurate, but it is useful because of its simplicity. The beauty of the triune theory is like the oversimplified atomic model. Please do not use your vast knowledge to criticize how inaccurate the triune theory is. Because it would be like a physicists trying to use quantum mechanics to argue how wrong the electron orbit model is. The triune theory is useful and elegant. All models are wrong, but some are useful. The triune theory illustrates many complicated principles in very simple and intuitive terms. It illustrates principles without frying one's brain with massive amounts of details.

I also read the "Status of the model" section. It mentioned about reptiles, fishes, and birds. The triune theory is more often used by psychologist and lay people. The triune theory when focused on human evolution makes a lot of sense. The reptiles, fishes, and birds mentioned are divergent species from our evolutionary line. That is their brain evolved independently and differently from the triune theory.

When used in a human context and not on birds and alligators or crocodilians it would make a lot of sense. That is our earliest reptilian ancestor may have the reptilian structure like that proposed by the triune theory. Then this reptilian brain gradually layered by mammalian and neocortex layer. The problem with comparing it to birds and alligators is that, they are divergent lines from the human line. The triune theory may be used to only explain human brain evolution and not other species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrZhuKeeper (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You claim to have read the status of the model section and yet didn't read that all the parts of the triune brain model alre present through out all vertebrates save for a true neocortex but that sauropsids ("reptiles" and birds) have an homologue? the model is not wrong because it's simplistic, it's just wrong. Mike.BRZ (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Paleomammalian Brain

"MacLean's recognition of the limbic system as a major functional system in the brain was not widely accepted among neuroscientists, and is generally regarded as his most important contribution to the field."

This statement seems self-contradictory, and could use some clarification (not to mention citation). At the very least, it seems like the 'and' should be changed to a 'but', but even better would be some explanation. I'm not an expert, so I don't want to edit it myself. --Thegooseking (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree the statement is self-contradictory, and suggest that the error is the word 'not'. The limbic system has been 'widely accepted among neuroscientists' ever since it was proposed, and is still in common use. Unless anyone objects, I will delete 'not' when I next visit this page. Brymor (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Section on the legal application of the theory

In the introduction, there is an out of place paragraph on what appears to be a legal treatise based on a superficial interpretation of the triune theory. It contributes nothing to our understanding, and so I recommend it be removed. Thmskmbl (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Reptile Theory

It would be nice to add a section that goes more in detail about this, such as describing milestone cases that this theory has been used in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.164.250 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference Does Not Backup Assertion

In the opening section the text "However, this hypothesis is no longer espoused by the majority of comparative neuroscientists in the post-2000 era.[2]" does not seems supported by the reference, which is an exhortation to neuroscientists not to subscribe to the theory, rather than a review of neuroscientists' views alecmce (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The text there is somewhat awkward but still correct. Quoting from that reference 2 we have This understanding of cognition and emotion leads to a view of the mammalian brain as divided into cognitive “higher” regions (neocortex) and emotional “lower” subcortical regions. This division is perhaps best exemplified in Paul MacLean’s discredited triune model of the mammalian brain (MacLean, 1952, 1990; for criticisms see Swanson, 1983; LeDoux, 2012). The lower, animal parts of the brain are understood (in line with the Hughlings-Jackson “Victorian” narrative) as standing in a linear, and hierarchical relationship to the higher neocortical regions. Why assume however that the only parts of the human brain to undergo change over the course of evolution were those located in the cortex?. So the source contains citations of 2 critiques and a sentence encapsulating the key criticism (suspension of evolution). So, I think that the source supports the claim made in the text under consideration. Klbrain (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Natural History of Skills

For a recent review of hypotheses concerning the respective roles of the dorsal pallium (a.k.a. the cortex in the mammals), the basal ganglia and the thalamus see "A Natural History of Skills, Thomas Boraud, Arthur Leblois, Nicolas Rougier, Progress in Neurobiology (2018). Article is freely available at https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01874690. I extracted figure 2 and insert into the page to illustrate the paragraph on the development of pallium in vertebrates. This reference might be useful but since I'm the last author of the article, I did not add it to the list of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas P. Rougier (talk • contribs) 10:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: I finally added the reference () . Nicolas P. Rougier (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This wiki-article is biased

Read the following paper - Modeling the instinctive-emotional-thoughtful mind. — Daniel S.Levine, 2017. Logvlad9 (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

References