food, choice, and the brain

I just discovered WNYC's Radiolab, which I can't believe I've never heard before. It is now tied for my favorite podcast with the BBC World Have Your Say, which I adore also. Podcasts: little joys of the world.

So the episode I caught was about choice, and how our brain manages to give us enough information to let us get through every day -- especially the cereal aisle. My friends know that choice is an especially sore spot with me. The whole episode is fascinating and provides enough interesting thought points for the next five or so dinner parties you might attend.

All of it is interesting, but the part I really love discusses the work of Baba Shiv, a professor at the Stanford School of Business (natch), who gave participants in a study either 2 or 7 digits to memorize. They were then instructed to walk down the hall, but were stopped before they got to the supposed second part of the experiment by someone offering them compensation for their participation -- either a slice of cake or a bowl of fruit. So, turned out that, consistently, the people with seven digits in their head took the cake. Those with two took the fruit. The reason, Shiv thinks, is that with the reasoning side of the brain occupied, people chose what looked tastiest to the emotional brain. Those with some extra space in their rational brains used it to make the healthier decision.

So now I know why I gain anywhere from 2-5 pounds during finals.

Answers (or: Zen and the Art of Medical School)

For better or worse, I took a personality assessment last year, as a participant in a study that another student in my program is doing. The test told me I'm an INTJ, which I like to refer to as the "evil mastermind phenotype." The description tells me that I look to put the world into logical frameworks (and am not so great on the personal relationship side of life -- oh well).

While, yes, this lends itself to scientific thought and exploration, it also produces some problems within the study of medicine. Because medical problem solving is all about finding the logic behind the mysery -- but when push comes to shove, something is still unexplained. I would much rather be the person writing the textbook than reading it, because the authors have the liberty to pick what they know and gloss over what they don't.

Scientific study continues with an aim towards explaining the unexplained, but there's also a point of complacency -- a point at which physicians seem content to know that a symptom is caused by a certain disease, and know which treatment works. How exactly the symptom occurs may never be explained, and may never need to be explained, practically speaking.

But for the med student, particularly one who craves answers, this is a continual source of frustration. The structural framework for explaining the disease is almost complete, but is missing a few blocks in one corner. You can drive yourself crazy looking for answers that you'll never find, or trying to reconcile contradictory theories.

So, apparently, there's an additional skill you need to learn in med school: learning when to give up. When to accept that the answers aren't there, and be at peace with the ambiguity. The first battle is with the material, and the second with the frustrated brain. For an INTJ, the second may be harder to win.