Zamaria Odom

Reader Response Draft 2

November 12 2017

Analyzing Neuroscientific Texts

The subject of neuroscience is very distinguished, establishing itself as one of the most

rapidly growing fields of study in modern society. Neuroscience is the scientific study of the

nervous system, involving the brain, spinal cord, and sensory nerve cells. This field is an

interdisciplinary one, meaning it involves multiple fields, such as psychology, biology, chemistry

and physics. Within this discipline, people can share common ideas, goals, and mechanisms of

intercommunication that range from various backgrounds in order to provide valuable

information and feedback. This is evident in the analyzation of the articles written by people with

different areas of inquiry. The article by Jaak Panksepp titled Neuroevolutionary sources of

laughter and social joy: Modeling primal human laughter in laboratory rats and the other

co-authored by UCSB professor Alan Fridlund titled Relations between tickling and humorous

laughter: Preliminary support for the Darwin-Hecker hypothesisboth deal with the subtopic of

laughter, observing its origin and functions. There are specific obligations that need to be met in

order to be apart of this type of academic community. In the field of neuroscience specifically, a

member of this community must conduct experiments that include a meticulous evaluation of

their data. Whatever experiment a researcher chooses to perform must be replicable under the

same conditions, producing similar results. The use of academic language that is specific to each

discipline is also necessary when communicating with other members. In addition, it is required

to have a full understanding of any background information on the varying topics as well as
awareness on opposing viewpoints that exist for them. These conventions, along with valid

research and comparable writing, are essential in communicating successfully with this specific

community.

Neuroscience covers a wide variety of topics, as stated earlier. Therefore this community

can involve various professionals. The article written by Jaak Panksepp, a psychobiologist,

concentrates on the similarities and differences between rats and humans and how mammals

brain activity compare across species. The other article co-authored by Alan Fridlund, a clinical

and social psychologist, concerns the relations between tickling and human laughter, attempting

to address the Darwin-Hecker hypothesis, which states that reflexes underlying ticklishness

mediate humor. They participate in this community by reporting valid evidence on their

experiments. Panksepp monitored the laboratory rats with vibration monitors attached to their

napel areas, whereas Fridlund measured ticklishness in undergraduate psychology students.They

each have a detailed discussion on their experiments and the procedures they precisely followed

through the duration of it. Despite the fact that the two authors vary in profession, Fridlund being

a clinical psychologist and Panksepp as a psychobiologist , they are both included as members of

this community, providing significant information on the subject of laughter.

The conveyance of evidence may be one of the most important characteristic of this

specific discipline. This characteristic can be expressed through charts, graphs, tables, and even

detailed accounts. In this community, newfound evidence and opinions possess very little

validity without the presence of strong evidence behind it. Evidence is used to disprove standing

theories and introduce newfound theories professors have. Fridlund and his co authors purpose

was to provide support to a standing theory known as the Darwin-Hecker Hypothesis with a
supplemental experiment. This report incorporates a table along with direct quotes and

mathematical equations to report the data that was collected from their questionnaire. He also

uses statistical evidence to help support his arguments. The extent to which subjects reported

being very ticklish correlated 0.78 and 0.84, respectively, with their ticklishness as a child and

the extent of ticklishness on their bodies, with the latter two measures themselves showing a

correlation of 0.76(Fridlund 145). Panksepp instead gives a detailed description with direct

quotes from the experiments, sharing his overall findings in a few concisely written paragraphs.

He finds that the tickle response of rats declines more slowly than their tendency to play

spontaneously, but there is an eventual decline in young adulthood. It is hard to evoke tickle

induced chirping in adult animals, unless they have been tickled abundantly when

young(Panksepp 235). Panksepp does not include any graphs or charts that depict the data he

discusses. At first glance, it may seem very misleading and unfulfilling in this community,

however this description with extensive detail on the information he discovered provides enough

evidence to substantiate his ideas.

One pattern that is noticeable in both reports is the way in which their evidence is

analyzed. These two articles indicate that self-reflection of your findings is a large part of

research and writing in this discipline. In order for your perspectives to be taken seriously, you

must extensively evaluate the evidence you collect and conduct an experiment with little to no

outside influences. Panksepp is well aware that the findings in rats cannot directly relate to

humans. He states, Because of evolutionary divergences, animal models of emotions can only

be approximations of how similar processes are elaborated in humans, but general organizational

principles may be conserved(Panksepp 240).Fridlund follows a similar format, when he

reported that his motives were discovered by test subjects. Three of the 50 undergraduates

(6.0%) guessed that we were exploring ticklishness in some way(Fridlund 145).Fridlund

shares that a few of the participants became aware of what they were testing for, which alters the

data because the participants are aware of what to expect ad therefore can influence the findings.

Ann John, author of Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice reveals in her

components of an academic discourse community that the author must maintain an objective

view, and present their arguments and results in order to sustain their role in the community.

Panksepp and Fridlund both fulfill these requirements by their blatant honesty and confrontation

of the flaws in their experiment, leaving no room for speculation or dishonesty from themselves

nor the audience.

An advanced knowledge of the subject, including background information, previous

researchers, and opposing viewpoints is necessary to communicate with the audience. It is

necessary to be aware of opposing viewpoints from all angles and well informed in the

background information in order to reach your audience with valid statements. Panskeep

includes basic terms that need to be understood such as Hz(hertz, a frequency) and homologous

structures, meaning they resemble one another in different animals. It is also beneficial to

understand the topic of neuroscience and behavioral activity as these are the main ideas he

concentrates on in his report. With Fridlunds report, in order to contribute to and understand this

conversation, it is essential to know the Darwin-Hecker hypothesis as well as terms associated

with the experiments they conducted. Piloerection, a common reaction that can be expressed as

goose bumps would not be common knowledge to the average reader(Fridlund 144).The

information Fridlund and his co-author present produce the ability for a supporter of the theory
to take a stronger stance on the topic due to the evidence they have contributed to the standing

Darwin-Hecker theory. Throughout each report, both authors build off previous findings in the

former hypothesis to make new conclusions about the material.

All in all, the discipline of neuroscience contains a discourse community in which its

specific conventions allow members to successfully communicate with one another. The

replicability of their experiments allows other members to have a stronger belief in the

information they present, as well as consciousness of flaws that may exist in the experiment. The

requirements of this community can be seen in the real world example of neuroscience graduate

program at UCSB. With a purpose of providing diverse research topics in a laboratory

environment, the school requires students to conduct extensive research and valid reports in

order to earn certification of completing the program. This community allows professionals

from different areas to converse and share their unique discoveries under the same light.
 Works Cited

Neuroscience and Behavior. Psych.ucsb.edu, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences,

www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/nab.

Panksepp, Jaak. "Neuroevolutionary Sources of Laughter and Social Joy: Modeling Primal
Human Laughter in Laboratory Rats." Behavioural Brain Research 182.2 (2007): 231-44. Web.

Fridlund, and Loftis. "Relations between Tickling and Humorous Laughter: Preliminary Support
for the Darwin-Hecker Hypothesis." Biological Psychology 30.2 (1990): 141-50. Web.