Talk:Amygdala

Citations needed

This article is outgrowing its citations. Citations in an article on detailed functional anatomy need to be closely associated with particular sections. A recent update offers a reliable citation in "Principals of Neuroscience" but we can't easily correlate which sections are supported by that text. The information on learned fear conditioning seems to correlate with citations provided, but those too need to be directly associated with the citation. If we have several paragraphs of theory and two or three citations at the bottom, it is difficult to check facts. Other sections did not associate readily with any citation in a reliable source. One citation pointed to speculative literature from advocates of neurolinguistic programming. That is not peer-reviewed literature and does not meet a standard of reliability for a science article. A primary reference for assertions offered in such an article would be more appropriate for encyclopedic content. MoniqueRN 05:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

agreed. i would suggest that the most egregiously uncited material be removed immediately. sallison 19:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on my best judgement of what was most egregious, I've done that. I also made several other changes to resolve singular/plural conflicts, to add a citation, to better conform content to citations, to make content more readable and to temper subjective analysis of laboratory findings. Explanations follow.

There might be a publication style here to govern descriptions of bilateral anatomy. If there is a particular style, content should conform to style. The scope of my edits today did not involve a broad survey of style beyond this page. The language of structural anatomy, with a tendency toward singular description of bilateral features, might only be partially instructive. In exposition of anatomical functions, each of two bilateral features may be equally involved. See Lung. "The lung is..." "The lungs are involved..." "The lungs flank..." An established nuance might elude my comprehension, but I suspect a systematic stylistic problem I'm not prepared to address beyond this page.

The singular/plural problem becomes more complex as we describe dissection. We dissect an individual amygdala. We describe its parts as elements of a single amygdala. Nuclei within the dissected amygdala can be singular, as is the central nucleus, or plural, as are the lateral nuclei.

In the introduction, I removed a sentence that said five psychological conditions are "suspected of being linked" to these groups of nuclei. Suspicion of links is not strong content for an intro. No basis for the suspicions was available in citations. I removed references to sexual dimorphism, to association with aggression and to post-castration shrinkage. Only castration effects were supported by citation. Those were in rats, not in humans. The passages did not inform a general understanding of the subject as would be appropriate for an introductory paragraph.

The mention of "links" to fear and pleasure was vague and didn't accurately describe whatever dualism might be exposed by procedures that explore aversive and appetitive reactions. The leap from aversion and appetition in pure research to subjective descriptions of various emotions in clinical psychology is rhetorically narrow but scientifically vast. For the sake of accuracy, anatomy articles sometimes include big words. I would introduce error if referred to a tempting but overly general duality of "positive and negative emotions." Procedural associations with rewards and punishments in associative-learning research don't neatly expose the full scope of emotional discourse. Physiology associated with particular emotions is explored elsewhere in this collection, so we don't need to reach beyond what can be said with confidence about this anatomical feature.

The distinction between emotions and emotional reactions is also problematic when we attempt to describe neuroanatomical functions. We will find robust debate among researchers and clinicians about distinctions between feelings, emotions and emotional reactions. Citing the scope of that debate is beyond what I can contribute today. Deferring to the in-house definition, emotions are a language. The language represents feelings, which are perceptions of physiological responses to internal and external events. Expressions of that language are emotional reactions. Emotion is an impulse that arises from a perception or that causes a perception. The amygdala are involved in mediating responses to the impulse. The distinction might be narrow and many qualified scholars might debate the concepts. The best citation available on the page refers only once to a form of emotion, that being emotional learning, which is a reaction, not the primary action of the impulse. The anatomical scope of internal and external emotional discourse extends beyond these particular clusters of neurons that, along with other anatomical features, mediate that discourse. Thus, I changed the intro to mention a "role in the processing and memory of emotional reactions."

EDIT:Reviewing the emotions article, it is evident the concept of emotion as language has been dropped. The language construct might have heuristic value, but is probably less than definitive. All the same, the distinction between emotion as impulse and emotional reaction to the impulse seems solid, based on availalable texts.MoniqueRN 18:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The final section still contains material not directly associated with citations, but it is generally consistent with some research, at least to my knowledge. It needs to be refined. Other content related to reinforcement might be redeemed with reliable citations of consensus findings. MoniqueRN 03:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Neil Slade discussion

Insert non-formatted text here

[Skeptic Joe] This guy [www.neilslade.com www.BrainRadar.com] claims that the amygdala can be consciously manipulated by "clicking" them forward, which induces pleasure and can lead to out of body experiences and the ability to destroy clouds.

[Neil Slade Replies] Not MY CLAIM. Go READ any bona fide neuroanatomy text. The role of the amygdala is plain as day, written about all over the planet, seen in popular media on occassion, and agreed on by everyone in science and medicine. Cloudbusting (controversial) and OBE (much less so) are very minor incidental experiences that some people observe they begin to learn "Oh, I can do something else with my brain besides watch TV."

As for CORTICAL control of auto-amygdala functions "conscious clicking the amygdala from non-thinking reaction foward into conscious creative advanced thinking"-- There is no controversy among learned persons about this whatsoever.

Example:
1) You see that your hand is getting near a flame, you automatically pull it back.

2) You cortex CONTROLS and PREVENTS this auto-reaction from occuring-- you kneel down beside a fire, and carefully move the logs, you light a stove with care.

[Skeptic Joe] While he includes full instructions on his site, there is a point where one has to have achieved the ability to click their amygdala in order for the rest of the steps to be relevant.

[Neil Replies] ?? Not a very clear or concise or specific statement above.

[Skeptic Joe] He relies on testimonials. Would seem like complete quackery and Alex Chiu levels of unbelievability,

[Neil Replies] Well, yes, to someone who knows nothing of brain function. Except most of what appears on my site in regards to amygdala function by definition comes straight from medical textbooks, science textbooks, currect research, and journal citations. In addition I provide some fun content, stories, art, music- i.e. expressions of creative thought process that try to relate brain function to daily experience.

[Skeptic Joe] But it would be interesting to find actual students of his or people who have been in contact with him, as he appears to be presenting truth even as far fetched as it is.

[Neil Replies] Try one of the 9500 members of one of our Yahoo groups, I'm sure they would be happy to talk:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/YourGreatBrainAdventure/

or the 2123 members on this forum http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/brainexplorers/

Promotion of a self-published book in fringe media will generate a mailing list. Names on a list do not indicated endorsements. Endorsements do not indicate proof of a theory.MoniqueRN 04:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[Skeptic Joe] Anyone who has attempted to pop their amygdala should be made note of. It's still pseudoscience though.

[Neil Replies] Dr. Paul McLean, director of the Laboratory for Brain Evolution and Behavior, pseudoscience? Joseph LeDoux, Center for Neural Science, Quackery?

Dropping names of professional scientists does not indicate these researchers endorse the theories presented in self-help books promoted here. Dropping their names does not mean their research is accurately represented in an idiosyncratic self-help book. MoniqueRN 04:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where Skeptic Joe is getting his information, but places like the above, that's where I get mine. As for me, I've been a teacher for 30 years, and I've got lots of on hand experience under my belt. The library, and your local university and medical library is full of information about the amygdala and its relation to the rest of the brain. Learn what the amygdala does, learn what modifies its behaviors. You can start here.... http://www.neilslade.com/chart.html http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/Science.html

Humans are animals, and not all animals have an amygdala. Which animals do? -phma

[Neil Replies] Any animal with a mammal mid-brain has an amygdala, or like-structure, from mice to elephants. strong connections to the mental reactions of the person that's bright. not. now wouldn't you expect to find something in the brain that has strong connetions to the mental reactions of the person There are, by the way, maps of nerves that depict actual connections to other actual parts of the brain. And with the wonders of hyper text, guess what, it is easier than ever to write accurate descriptions of actual parts of the brain to which readers can navigate and learn how amygdalar cortical regions relate with other regions and what are the functional roles of those regions. Didn't somebody say they were watching these pages with the literature and experience to be a little more accurate than this? Psuedoscience? Far from it. That's the entire point. FROM NEIL SLADE: My site and books are filled to the brim with references in the literature concerning amygdala function, frontal lobes function, limbic system function, r-complex function, the triune model of the brain as defined by Dr. Paul McLean of NIMH, etc etc. The processes of brain self-control are not only very evident, by completely obvious and incontrovertible to any person who takes the time to understand the plain functions of the human brain as defined by science and education... alas The only problem is that only a very small percentage of the general population has any idea of basic brain function- it remains a mystery- one which is happily and easily discovered with a small bit of brain homework. So thus, my life's work has been primarily that of education, motivation, and edu-tainment. Alas, we are a society in general who is glued to the TV screen and such mundane interests as NFL, American Idol, Fear Factor, and the Home Shopping Network. My job has been to create materials that will capture the interest of ordinary folk. My newsletter group is populated, and has been for nearly a decade, with professionals, medical researchers and doctors, teachers, scientists, as well as people in all forms of employment and vocation. One merely need read their feedback and opinions of brain self-control to learn what is and what is not possible, what is fiction, and what is intelligent expression. - Neil Slade Jan 2006 [Skeptic Joe] Well then, why don't you provide more evidence of students who have gone through the program and can experience enhanced wellbeing and even "cloud bursting" by popping the amygdala. This must be verifiable evidence from a source other than the Neil Slade website. So far the only claims of success are on the website itself. [Neil Slade replies] What program? I write BOOKS that have INFORMATION and IDEAS. Brain Self Control means YOU play with your own brain. Not me. I don't enroll anyone in anything. You mean success as in being able to improve one's life with creativity, imagination, cooperation, logic, planning, abstract thought, critical thinking, playing music, creating art, dialog? You mean success as in learning to not put your hand in a hot fire? I didn't realize someone thought I had a copyright on that! That I had to prove using your brain was good for you.....hahah!!  :-)

the assertion above that amygdala's role in the brain is thoroughly understood is greatly overstated. furthermore, that which is presented here is definitely not consensus material. sallison 19:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Size matters?

From the intro:

"Its size is positively correlated with aggressive behavior across species. In humans, it is the most sexually-dimorphic brain structure, and shrinks by more than 30% in males upon castration. "

Is this right? It seems a bit fishy to me. Sources? Sayeth 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the relationship between castration and amygdala size I found this Pub Med article. I could not find anything about a link between amygdala size and aggressive behaviour. Renaissance Healer

[Neil Responds] I think most whale amygdala outsize any human amygdalae--- and last I heard, no whales had started any wars, and they don't engage in genocide. :-)

It's an interesting rat study, but it does not merit discussion in the introductory parapgraph. I suggest that a discussion on the dimorphic differences in the amygdala be moved to a later section. The finding as it is written now (in humans) is uncited, and as far as I know, unsupported by any published research. As written, it should simply be removed. sallison 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Clicking section

• Neil Slade responds}

"Click your amygdala"-- This is a phrase invented by brain and behavior researcher T.D.A. Lingo to refer to conscious cortical control of lower brain functions. Its just a modern slang phrase to illustrate that you have a neuroprocess that engages other brain processes--- like flipping the light switch on your wall.

Example: You are startled by a loud noise in back of you. "Your amygdala clicks backward, automatically"- Fight or flight reactions happen instantaneously to enhance self survival. Or for example, you stumble upon a snake in a forest path- amygdala "clicks" backward. [1]

Where as "clicking backwards" is an automatic process to engage survival, fight or flight, and such-- "click forward" refers to conscious deliberate cortical (higher brain) functions to overcome lower brain limitations. Thus, you can engage "Creative- Imaginative-Cooperative- Intuitive-Logical" process dependent on primarily increased frontal lobes processes to SOLVE the PROBLEM of "snake in path".

The difference is, in the lower brain "clicking backwards solution"- you shoot and kill the snake, or simply run like hell till you drop after you've run out of breath or stumbled over a cliff.

In the higher brain "clicking forward solution", you identify the snake as non-lethal, or you simply calm yourself down, you don't panic, and you walk around the snake, or you back up slowly. I.e., you THINK instead of merely REACT

The ability to CONSCIOUSLY and deliberately engage additional frontal lobes options in a threatening, unfamiliar, and problem situation is a matter of training, education, planning, and is available to anyone who has a functioning pre-frontal cortex (most of us).

ILLUSTRATION of Intelligence Click If you see a mountain lion in your path, if you do nothing but automatically "click backwards", you run like hell, and then the cougar thinks you are prey and you are the cougar's lunch.

If you see this same mountain lion, and you "click forward" you remember what you learned when you stop and used your advanced brain to read the brochure in the Forest Ranger Cabin near the entrance to the park that said "...if you encounter a mountain lion, DON'T RUN, make yourself appear as big as possible, raise your hands and wave, make lots of noise." And you survive.

THAT is the difference between clicking your amygdala backward and forward. In terms of EMOTIONAL RESPONSE, the human brain is wired very well to reward advanced thinking and discourage insufficient advanced thinking. That's where the "pleasure and pain" come into the picture.

Here's how Mother nature so cleverly wired up our brain:

NEGATIVE NOTHINGNESS When you use little of your brain potential, i.e. just the core reactionary part of your brain (McLean's Reptile Brain) excluding more advanced frontal lobes type processes- you can only experience pain, boredom, fear, and at very best, short term pleasure. Think of a reptile sitting on a rock, all alone. But with your human body and brain. Bored. Lonely. Cold. How about a teenager who hasn't yet grown into full frontal lobes utilization (the frontal lobes are not fully developed till after 20 years or more). Someone who hasn't clicked on "cause and effect" circuits.

"Hey lets get REALLY DRUNK!!! Let's spend all our money on 2 cases of BEER! And go take dad's car for a spin!!! YEA!!!!!" This is short term fun of insuficient frontal lobes processes. Hangover if lucky. Dead at 17 if not so lucky.

Back in the late 1800's, Phineas Gage blew apart his frontal lobes working on the railroad with an explosive charge and a railroad tie splitting his cranium. He taught us that without the ability to "click forward" into our frontal lobes (now mush on the railroad), life becomes a random sequence of meaningless and frustrating events. POSITIVE REWARD: On the other hand-- frontal lobes creative-imaginative-cooperative-intuitive-logical circuits fully engaged:
Picasso or Einstein. Aerosmith after they got sober. Happy family life.

Job you like. A little money in the bank. Money saved for trip to Europe or new drum set. Nature REWARDS frontal lobes thinking with PLEASURE. Self esteem. Happiness of Success and goal acheivement. "EUREKA!! I figgered it out!" Don't that new song sound good? Don't that picture look pretty? Happiness of Success and goal acheivement.

Now, of course, no one wants to disengage permanently one's "reptile brain", as Dr. McLean has called the primitive reative core brain. You need this instantaneous survival reaction- its there for a good reason. But you don't want your life RULED by it. The frontal lobes evolved because the ADDITION of advanced frontal lobes processes like: abstract thought; imagination; planning; understanding cause and effect; concepts of time; creativity; cooperation. This enhanced survival far beyond the limitations of the reptile brain and "clicking backwards" alone. Thus, we evolved bigger and bigger frontal lobes. To click forward into. Thank you Mother.

So, if someone has an objection to or denies the idea that one can "click forward" and thus improve one's life and ability to survive- this would imply that such a person does not believe it is in one's interest- much less a possibility- to consciously and purposefully engage the vast unlimited potential inside one's own brain, specifically in the frontal lobes functions of CICIL (creativity-imagination-cooperation-inutition-logic). A rather depressing and self-defeating attitude for anyone to have.

The trick is to remember and make use of frontal lobes processes and make long term solutions rather than be a slave to reptilian brain backward clicking short term solutions.

Its neuroscience. "Clicking" is simply a convenient phrase to describe different functions involving the amygdaloid body, both voluntarily modified processes, and involuntary processes, which are extremely well known among even the most modestly educated person.

It should be noted that the popular press emphasises the negative conditioning responses of the amygdala. However this "nutty" little organ also processes and learns POSITIVE REWARD REINFORCEMENT. Its not just all punishment, fear and pain conditioning. It helps you to remember when you do something that feels good just as well.

The degree to which any individual has cortical control over their lower brain, the degree by which any individual can click forward or backward-- this is a matter of experience, education, and a knowledge of self and environment. If the ideas above seem "wacko" to anyone... gee whiz. :-)

As for "self reference" (below comment)-- if one missed it the first time, please see the page on scientific reference materials on brain function, thank you. www.neilslade.com Besides this, I am continually linking to journal articles and relevant web articles weekly. One can check the Yahoo Group message archives for this, and this totals 500+
here [2] and 2700 posts here [3] I haven't counted total references and citations to outside journals, books, articles, and web sites outside mine, but it is very considerable.

Brain Magic. Is the brain capable of "magic"? Consider this: Australian Neurology Nobel Laureate Sir John Eccles. (Lecture: University of Colorado, University Memorial Center Boulder, July 31, 1974.) "The brain indicates its powers are endless."

The human brain is one of, if not THE most mysterious and "magical" things in the universe. We are surrounded- EMMERSED DAILY in a continual environment of things, powers, and phenomenon we completely take for granted, things that were thought IMPOSSIBLE a hundred years ago and less, but now undeniable direct and indirect expressions of human brain thought, creativity, and imagination.

Who is to say that out-of-body experience, prediction and manipulation of clouds and weather, and all types of other-normal experience is not valid or even possible with the human infinity think machine? We have just begun to learn what is possible with the human brain. -Neil Slade June 2006.

Way to screw up the formatting, Neil. For someone with such a profound understanding of the 'magical' brain it seems odd that basic HTML formatting is beyond you.

What does anyone think of this? It seems to be too much a self-reference. haz (user talk) 13:59, 24 June 2006

Reply: It is not a self reference but it is based on 35 years of research done by TDA Lingo and 1000's of students participated. I will restore the section and add this extra knowledge with reference links.

- I removed the clicking section because it's clearly a biased advertisement. Just don't even tolerate this kind of stuff in the future. - Khol

Reply: Advertisement? On the websites there are massive amounts of reports and research posted on for free as well as the amygdala clicking technique it self. So how is this advertisement? I thought adding this section would be relevent for such information as it has to do with amygdala stimulation.

- Amygdala stimulation is fine, yes- but this "clicking" technique is clearly a fallicy. When it links to a myspace page Clicking at Myspace that reeks of unprofessionalism and silliness- claiming that using the power of your brain to perform "Cloud Busting - Make clouds dissipate with thought." and to take advantage of "Synchronisation - When coincidences aren't coincidence, and you actually realise that with a feeling.", it's clearly something that doesn't deserve any kind of actual status as a legimate anything. Yes, it can be reported with a neutral point of view that some people advocate this kind of stuff but the section that existed before-hand implied that this self-proclaimed magic was true. I mean, let's face it- this is wacko stuff and has no place on wikipedia if it's going to have any kind of standing as a reputable source of real. - Khol

Electrical stimulation of animal amygdala in research does not produce results that support claims of self-control through self-stimulation of particular neuroatomical regions. There is no peer-reviewed evidence that techniques suggested in books promoted by this author have any more than a placebo effect.

There is no more place in this neuroanatomy article for a lone idiosyncratic view of how a person can control their neurobiological functions than there is a place in an article about Napoleon for information about someone who self-published a book claiming to speak for the ghost of Napoleon. Links promoting this author's speculative self-help books do not belong in this article because they are not relevant to the topic of this article. This author's self-published books probably don't meet standards of notability for an encyclopedic article of any sort.MoniqueRN 04:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

>...here is no more place in this neuroanatomy article for a lone idiosyncratic view of how a person can control their neurobiological functions...

Conscious control of various "neurobiological" functions has been going on forever, since humans began telling jokes and engaged in singing. Every time you do something that you know will cause a positive emotional reaction in your brain (or for that matter a negative emotion), you are exercising brain self-control, and consciously altering your neuro-function. It is unbelievable that people find the concept of controlling one's brain function such a threatening and unacceptable concept, since we do it every day of our lives. As far as explanations being "speculative" and "idiosyncratic", I don't see a single sentence fragment that supports such criticism, and this author's site refutes such a general claim which appears to have no basis at all. Contrary, extraordinary steps to clarify brain function to a broader audience and in a manner that is in no way inappropriate and continues to maintain respect of current neurological scientific understanding of brain function is the rule.

Problems with article?

Hi everyone, I was requested to come over to this article and have a look in regards to some sort of commotion? I gave it (and the talk page) a quick skim and the article seems reasonable in its current form; except that I would recommend putting the majority of the article in the singular form, i.e. amygdala is the most common usage. From the talk page, I would skip any reference to the clicking stuff; there is no clicking in the brain (except for clicking in the ear), there are only voltage potentials and current; or more specifically, electrons, nuclei, and photons interacting electromagnetically. Also, I would suggest to add more sources to the "memory section" and furthermore to add more historical neuroscience researchers to this article, e.g. who made the first connection between the fear state of mind and amygdala activity. Adios: --Sadi Carnot 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could the pronunciation be put at the top of the page please?--Lionheart Omega 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronciation guides are in dictionaries not encyclopedias. See:

Look up amygdala in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

. Thanks:--Sadi Carnot 13:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

More Neil Slade discussion (hopefully the last one)

=="Hopefully the last one?" Is this editorial quip typical of the un-biased objective factual presentations of Wikipedia?

Moved here from the talk page: User talk:Sadi Carnot

The article itself is fine, but there is a certain advocate of amygdala theories, Neil Slade, being discussed in the talk page. Since it's beyond the scope of the Amygdala article, a Neil Slade article could be created, but like Alex Chiu or Richard C Hoagland, it would be based on neutral observation of claims, while the author himself would likely be irked at having his theories called pseudoscience or unscientific. I still think he needs his own article so others can find unbiased information rather than get it through his website. User:71.213.92.224 07:50 9 August 2006.

== Nothing is really neutral, perhaps the ph of distilled H2O comes close.

I do however, not compare myself with Mr. Chiu or Hoagland, and this is a rather obvious professional put down. I am a certified teacher by the state of Colorado, and I've taught in both the private sector, in public schools, conducted therapeutic workshops in every major psychiatric hospital in the metropolitan area here, and general and senior community centers, as well as 11 years experience working with independent behavior researcher T.D.A. Lingo. My professional experience in teaching, learning, and the practical application of behavioral science and brain function has extended over 30 years.-NS

Well, my anonymous friend, I searched around a bit; I found a Neil Slade Interview, and he has a 1998 book selling at Amazon called: The Frontal Lobe Supercharge, which has a decent sales rank of 213,000 on 08/09/06. This book seems to cater to the spiritual or new-age type of crowd. The book and website seems to be about how to stimulate your amygdala by some kind of meditation technique, being similar to how reading a book or playing video games stimulates the amygdala. That’s great that he has his theory and he is actively striving to educate a certain type of crowd with his ideas, but he seems to be clogging up the talk:amygdala page with all his “clicking theory” stuff, which is a drain on everyone who just wants straight textbook knowledge on the topic of the “amygdala”.

==Not a very good search. A Google search of "Neil Slade brain" results in 180,000 links/pages. No, I responded and offered rebuttal to specific criticisms. This is commonly called "discussion". It appears that the above is simply guessing at the content of my materials, and it doesn't accurately reflect the substance of my writing either on the web site or in the published manuscripts. What "theory"? What "ideas"? In which book? On which web page? You mean I have only ONE THEORY? ONE IDEA? Do I discuss nothing but my own original discoveries? Have I ignored all of the research and ideas that have come before me, before my own 30 years of teaching?

For those actually RESEARCHING such a thing (i.e. "Neil Slade's theories"), this would require reading such a book, or spending adequate time thoroughly reviewing the web site some time. This is called "research". The comments in the preceding paragraph might instead be described as "perfunctory glancing" and "generalized non-specific criticism".

What I see on this "Talk Amygdala" section is infinitely MORE REVEALING-- and that is, actual brain BEHAVIOR demonstrated. Anatomy and neurology revealed AT WORK:

The manner in which persons box up and categorize information, the way in which people draw conclusions from insufficient data. This alone makes this page worthwhile.

This page is not just TALKING about the amygdala, it is DEMONSTRATING how primal survival mechanisms such as attack, and counter attack behaviors influence and limit cortical thinking and judgement, and are filtered and expressed by language. Its a brilliant page (I don't mean my comments, but rather the whole discussion and interplay and what it shows) and totally relevant to the topic-- the global role of the amygdala in human thinking and behavior. It's not just about fight or flight when you see a snake--- its about how you act upon subtle environmental cues, its about how you perceive other humans and how you react to them on both a physical level AND A PSYCHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP level.

The amygdala is all about conditioned responses-- how we respond to THREATS, and NEW UNFAMILIAR OBJECTS and DATA, as well as the known and familiar. This extends far beyond see a hot flame or a snake in our path. The amygdala also processes HUMANS and their perceived intrinsic threats.

Example: Your amygdala clicks in when you see a human lunging at you with a club. It "clicks" backward, and your primal reptile brain survival mechanisms activate. Fight or flight. Don't like the word "click"? Fine, substitute your own phrase for transmission of electrical chemical signals along neuropathways.

But your amygdala is not just an ON or OFF switch. There are degrees, like the rheostat on your wall controlling your heat, or the accelerator pedal on your car. Sometimes the amygdala switch clicks on FULL and your heart rate skyrockets. But sometimes your amygdal just clicks a little, like when you tell a lie to protect yourself, and your heart rate just jumps a few beats a minute.

In the same way, you react-- and this includes unconscious or subconscious reaction to cues- to all kinds of stimuli in your environment, including persons, places, and things. If you perceive a THREAT- your amygdala clicks backward into defensive behaviors-- and this affects your cortical thinking, more often than not in limiting rational evaluation.

The next obvious question is this: What do humans perceive as threats- minimal or otherwise?

Remember the Twilight Zone episode where the harmless Neaderthal visits a neighboring cave clan? He is stoned to death- not because he is a real threat, but simply because he is UNFAMILAIR and OUTSIDE THE GROUP.

Welcome to Human Brain Behavior 2006. Things (including our brain anatomy) haven't changed much since we lived in caves.

What CLAN to you belong? Radiology Technician Clan? Popular Culture Clan? Living In A Shack in Idaho Clan? People Who Have Not Seen the Word Amygdala Used in Medical School Textbook Clan? UFO Believers clan? Commununist Party Clan? Republican Party Clan? Atheist Clan? Wal-Mart Dedicated Shopper Clan?

One of the more rudimentary ways a animal protects himself (better safe than sorry) is by thinking "My CLAN Is RIGHT! And YOURS is WRONG!" Unfortunately, this is not a very evolved way of thinking. At the human level, the Third Reich comes to mind.

Humans form groups of all fashions, and to the degree your status, self-esteem, ranking, and survival is perceived as threatened, your subconscious reaction to "NEW THING- OUTSIDE EXPERIENCE OBJECT" will take place--- via that little almond shaped button inside your brain.

If it clicks backward into reaction-- you attack. If it clicks forward into reason, you think.

Understand this, and then you've then understood far beyond what most armchair neurologists claim to know.-NS

For example, there’s no mention of “clicking” or “spade” in either Haines’ 1997 Fundamental Neuroscience or in Siegel’s 2006 Basic Neurochemistry. If you or someone else tried to start a Neil Slade wiki-article it would probably end up at the Wikipedia:articles for deletion section. I would suggest that Neil Slade as well as other’s on this talk page get themselves a Wikipedia account and a userpage so that they can converse properly on talkpages. Adios:--Sadi Carnot 13:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

====From my general comments below: If Wikipedia is going to post criticism and negative analysis (regardless of the researched or informed quality, including anonymous posts) it then needs to leave room for my rebuttal. Otherwise it's one-sided propaganda, not discussion.

I have no objection to such criticism, and in fact it furthers my ultimate goal: Get people thinking about how their brain works. "No publicity is bad, only no publicity."- Paul McCartney.

However, I neither need, nor want my own Wikipedia page, and I didn't start this one and the threads within that gleefully put me in the stoning circle for motives such critics delight in. Noted, one can always observe attacks by the establishment representatives, the indoctrinated, the elite, for this is a primal survival group-think mechanism with roots in the genetics of the reptile brain (Paul MacLean, Laboratory of Brain Evolution and Behavior).

I have merely chosen the option to answer attempts to devalue my opinions and work directly pointed at me on this web page. Attempts to discredit my work and that of my predecessor, himself previously running the gaunlet of higher education and scrutiny by self-appointed, and clique approved or solitary armchair experts, as well as true experts in the field and otherwise, are deserving of rebuttal. -NS

"...[clicking the amygdala]Its just a modern slang phrase to illustrate that you have a neuroprocess that engages other brain processes--- like flipping the light switch on your wall..." Could Slade be any more clear about the meaning and function of amygdala "clicking"? I think not.-NS

The editorial question is about the provinence of the phrase, not about the merits of the claim. The phrase is not "modern slang." It is a term promoted by one person in self-published books, and rarely used beyond those who find guidance from the author's books, if at all. Proprietary Amazon sales ranks are not reliable measures of book sales -- they are sometimes indicators of the scope of Internet-based marketing programs. MegaDaytime 03:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

==== The above comment is entirely inappropriate and incorrect. "Clicking the amygdala" has origins that start 50 years ago, and not with me. In fact, the origins are plainly stated on this very page-- completely missed by Mega per his wrong statement concerning provenance.

Usage of the term "clicking your amygdala" is in the general population. Such "slang" as defined by Websters does not require usage by the entire population, or selected members of a population (like brain surgeons or medical text book authors) but rather can be defined simply as "talk", "jargon", "language", "colloquial speech", and appropriately here, "lingo". There does not seem to be a minimum number of individuals required to use a phrase to qualify a word as "slang", much less qualify such a word as effective or legitimate. The idea of whether a word is useful or not resides solely with the persons communicating and using the word. No one is required to use it if they don't want to.

There are 12,000 voluntary members in three "Brain Adventure" Yahoo newsletter groups alone, all which employ among other "non-official" terms such as the questioned "clicking".There are over 10,000 in this group alone http://groups.yahoo.com/group/YourGreatBrainAdventure/ As I mention elsewhere, my own site alone gets 60,000 unique visitors a month, and this has been going on since 1997-- that would be a lot of people familiar with the term "clicking the amygdala", and probably indicating a fair number of these continue to use the term to their own satisfaction and end.

Additionally, Mega has made an erroneous conclusion about book sales, Less than 1% of my 5 books sales actually occur on Amazon.com. I engage in zero marketing campaigns, or advertising. Its all word of mouth.

I am published by one of Germany's largest (if not the largest) publishers, Rowolht Verlage. They publish the phrase "clicking the amygdala", and this is not self-publishing. None the less, are we to believe that publishing by a large capatalist corporation or entity somehow bestows legitimacy on ANYTHING? God help our society if this is the case.

My own efforts have distributed uncounted numbers of books in the past decade that probably number around 50,000+, including two books authored by researcher T.D. Lingo, the first person to popularize the phrase "clicking the amygdala". For all I know, he did not invent this phrase either, and it may have very well originated with one of his own neurology professor at the University of Chicago (one of which, incidentally, I have the physical brain of in a jar- bequeathed to Lingo, and than passed on to me.)

Personally I'm not that concerned with how many books sold- its not an indication of worthiness. Never the less, I get 60,000+ unique visitors a MONTH to my web pages. One radio appearance on Premier radio, which I do twice a year gathers a conservative estimate of 3 million listeners each 3 hour session, and I've been doing this since 1997. That's a lot of people, and a good percentage of them have found the idea of brain self-control and convenient use of the term "clicking the amygdala" useful, among other concepts of brain process and other recognized mechanisms of brain process which are drawn directly from the pages of official medical and scientific library shelves.-NS

===(Earlier post below)

Obvious to anyone, "clicking" is a METAPHOR with a specific purpose of describing a simplified model of amygdala process, process accepted and described in the medical literature. This term has not YET appeared in scientific medical texts. Does this render the use of such a metaphor as unqualified or unreasonable in a public forum? I think "metaphors" are reasonable methods of communicating ideas, and it seems that Wikipedia CONTROLLERS and EDITORS should be able to live with the use of such. It is emphatically clear that "amygdala clicking" is a metaphor where ever it appears, including on Slade's site. It refers to specific amygdaloid function, either voluntary or involuntary, either an emotional reward mechanism or a survival mechanism based on neuropathic processes. What is so controversial about that? -NS

Metaphors are composed routinely by various teachers, counselors and spiritual leaders. A metaphor coined by one author -- especially by one who self-publishes for a niche metaphysical market -- is in no way notable, nor is it relevant to an encyclopedic essay about the subject an individual uses as a metaphor. The author in question writes about brain structures in terms that extend well beyond metaphor. His efforts to describe brain function might have self-help value for those who decide to believe him, but diverge so widely from accepted, shared understandings of well-documented science they have no place in an encyclopedic essay. MegaDaytime 03:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

=====1) No, the first above statement is incorrect. Metaphors are used by everybody, everywhere, from little kids in first grade describing how they feel when they learn how to tie their shoe, to neurosurgeons describing how they feel when they save a life.

2) I don't publish for an niche, I publish for the general public, and my books can be found in public libraries, as well as a few psychiatric institutions, several colleges, as well as on the shelves of many professionals of various disciplines.

3)Whether a metaphor is notable or not-- again, this is judged solely by the user, and I don't think anyone on this web page or elsewhere is in a position to judge what language another person should use or find useful. Such an attitude is preposterous.

4) I didn't coin this particular metaphor ("click your amygdala forward"), nor was I the first to use it, nor am I the only one to use it. Apparently Mega is incapable of even reading what is clearly printed on this very web page, and hasn't even got that rudimentary observation correct, faulty from the get go.

5) Mega didn't even the most obvious and rudimentary fact about the use and origin of the term "clicking", and doesn't further express and accurate understanding of what my work and writing consists, obviously- unfortunately missing sentences clearly printed on this page, my opinion.

If a thread- not started by me incidentally, is critical of a metaphoric phrase I use, a term used by all kinds of people (some who visit and read Wikipedia and elsewhere)- despite the fact that it may not be a term thrown around in medical school--- good lord--- is Wikipedia ONLY for terms used in University? Well DUH it ain't, big surprise there, eh? What kind of intellectual snobbery and blindness is this?

Does Mega and others mean that discussion of anatomical body parts should be restricted to quotations from medical encyclopedias and text books? Such an assertion, as Mega plainly makes, is not only absurd, but retrogressive and anti-intellectual and not unlike the rationale used by the Church to imprison Galileo. "We are the officials, and we do not want to see or discuss your ideas, by anyone."

Does Mega and others mean to say that the use of a phrase is not legitimate or useful or accurate until it reaches some critical mass of acceptance in some magical percentage of the population, like how many hit records Britney Spears sells in a month? Until it appears in Websters, or quoted in The New York Times? Is legitimacy measured by popular acceptance?

What kind of critical, global, and logical thinking is Mega and others above using in this regard?

I think it is not only logical to explain in this discussion thread that "clicking the amygdala" is a model and a metaphor, but a downright necessary part of the discussion of "clicking the amygdala". Good lord! Especially when people post comments in the discussion, and don't even have the slightest idea of what it ("clicking" as used) refers to, or how it is used in education outside of the hollow halls of institutionalized medicine or beyond the prejudiced opinions of armchair Wikipedia self-appointed experts. (Sorry, I'm clicking a bit backward here....)

As for "the legitimate use by Neil Slade of a metaphor for describing a particular brain sub organ function"-

1) See above, and please read with comprehension

2) I've taught thousands of school kids and adults over a 30 year period- and if its important to anyone (not to me), I was educated in the state university, and I have one of those useless pieces of paper saying I am so qualified to teach in the public schools. And through this experience, I've learned the value of a good metaphor in teaching a wide variety of things, inclusive of brain function.

Last time I checked, Wikipedia was used primarily by lay people from a variety of disciplines, and not primarily or only by neurosurgeons and medical students-- and to this audience, as well as my own which never the less includes professionals in medicine, scientists, doctors, teachers, and everyone else-- metaphor is an entirely appropriate tool in describing ANYTHING, anywhere-- and last time I checked, metaphors were not prohibited by law any place, nor were they observed to cause a fundaMENTAL decrease in intelligence or understanding of a subject. So if anyone here still objects to the "click your amygdala forward" metaphor---- hmmmm, try clicking forward out of reptile brain counter attack, and try thinking instead. Who is forcing anyone to use the term, not me. I believe in democratic selection of reading material and language.

However, if Wikipedia editors are going to post criticism and negative analysis (regardless of the researched or informed quality, including anonymous posts with people using ficticious name "handles" instead of their actual legal name, or for that matter well researched comments) it then needs to leave room for my rebuttal, or disqualify itself as discussion and balanced reporting. Otherwise it's just one sided propaganda.

I have no objection to such criticism, and in fact it furthers my ultimate goal: Get people thinking about how their brain works. "No publicity is bad, only no publicity."- Paul McCartney.

However, I neither need, nor want my own Wikipedia page, and I didn't start this one and the threads within that gleefully put me in the stoning circle for motives such critics delight in. Noted, one can always observe attacks by the establishment representatives, the indoctrinated, the elite, for this is a primal survival group-think mechanism with roots in the genetics of the reptile brain (Paul MacLean, Laboratory of Brain Evolution and Behavior). No surprises for me here on Wikipedia.

I have merely chosen the option to answer slander and attempts to devalue my opinions and work directly pointed at me on this site, and the misleading attempts to discredit my work and that of my predecessor, himself previously running the gaunlet of higher education and scrutiny by self-appointed and clique approved experts.

However, may I suggest to a reader on this page to do a Google search for "amygdala"- My "irrelevant" material and web pages are ranked #10. Add the word "brain + amygdala", ranking #3 and #4. Add one more word, "frontal lobes + amygdala + brain", and you find that my web site, and pages within are ranked #1 on Planet Earth Internet. Somebody is reading, and contrary to the opposing comments on this page that would tell you so- they ain't all just stupid or merely curious people looking to see what Mr. Slade has got wrong. -NS