You and Your Mirror Neurons

Like mainstream media is beginning to cover games in more detail, some of the gaming press is becoming almost academic. Who would have thought – Gamespot has a piece on mirror neurons.

The article is a bit surprising in that it covers mirror neurons as a question of whether games lead to violence. As I understand it, mirror neurons aren’t really about being “copycat” of the actions you see, but about being able to simulate the actions of others in your head.

Incidentally, I was working on a panel paper proposal for CGDC in 2002 called “Mirror Neurons and Monkeys in Balls”, focusing on the kind of vertigo you experience when a monkey in Super Money Ball is balancing on the edge of a platform. Which is a clear example of mirror neurons at work. I just didn’t finish it.

P.S. For much more about mirror neurons, read V.S. Ramachandran’s article at Edge.org.

4 thoughts on “You and Your Mirror Neurons”

  1. I’ve discussed this in the past as well. I started a post about the existence of mirror neurons actually getting in the way of our ability to learn valuable lessons (based on an interesting food/toy acquisition study I heard about), but it started to sound too much like a “games as killing instructors” argument, so I tabled it until I found a better hook.

  2. I’ve been nuts about mirror neurons since Isaac Barry pointed that article out on his blog. Definately go and read it if you have time!

    The internalization of witnessed systemic behaviour is the basis of our ability to strategize. And mirror neurons might be an explanation for that. Great stuff!

  3. Definitely one of the more tantalizing discoveries lately, and one that maps very directly to baisc day-to-day experience. (Feeling the pain when you others get hurt and so on.) Perhaps Ramachandran is a bit over the top?

    I predict that mirror neurons will do for psychology what DNA did for biology: they will provide a unifying framework and help explain a host of mental abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious and inaccessible to experiments.

  4. Nothing’s conclusive, ofcourse. It’s just a very elegant explanation.

    I love that it goes some way to explaining Csikszentmihalyi’s “flow”, and even makes a connection with autism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *