Hi Everyone,

I'm looking to study Neuroscience further in-depth and I need some help. I'd like to get an overview of the various subfields of neuroscience. For instance, I know that some areas focus on imaging, whereas others focus on the cellular biology, etc. If anyone can provide more branches of neuroscience, or maybe a link to a list of branches, it'd be great.

Thanks!

Network neuroscience

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5485642/

Graph theory methods: applications in brain networks

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6136126/

A mechanistic model of connector hubs, modularity and cognition

• https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc6322416

Let's get to it.

If you’re not struggling, you’re not learning.

What’s your idea of learning to code?

Whip out your computer, type out a couple of cool commands. And bam - beauty personified.

Sorry, nope.

The process is at least 50% struggling especially at the beginning. And that’s how it should be. I’ve seen people quit programming because they don’t want to struggle with bugs. That’s like hating the gym because you don’t want workouts to hurt.

But the struggle is the way.

You don’t run from bugs;

You train yourself to find them quicker.

>A proficient programmer is an efficient detective of bugs.

If you’re feeling frustrated that things are not smooth, remember that this is how learning actually works.

Neuroscience research confirms that practice doesn’t simply make you perfect; it is deliberate practice to improve in a specific task that makes you better. And deliberate practice involves struggling.

So your mantra should be:You code.

You debug.

You struggle.

You overcome.

And you repeat.

If you’ve not struggled at all, you’re simply playing around. If you struggle all the time, then the next section is for you.

You’re not dumb, you’re learning at the wrong level.

Let’s start with a little analogy.

Imagine learning the English language (the language of exceptions :)

You start with a tutorial motivating you to learn to spell big words like ELEPHANT.

But it’s not working. After beating yourself for so long you decide to go to a lower tutorial and learn to spell smaller words like ANT.

But you still struggle.

So you conclude that you’re dumb because you lowered your tutorial level and still didn’t grasp anything.

But when a new teacher investigates why you’re struggling, they find out that you’ve been struggling because you actually don’t know the English alphabets.

Let’s bring this home to our coding world.

Some people jump into beginner tutorials to learn a React framework (ELEPHANT). Then realize it makes no sense so they move on to learn JavaScript (ANT). But that still makes no sense to them, so they quit.

But they’re simply working with something that’s too advanced.

Even introduction courses can be advanced because your thinking is not wired yet to programming in general. There’s no shame in finding something lower than Intro courses and starting from there to build up to Intro courses.

I don’t see this recommended enough but if you’re struggling with intro courses, you should consider Intro to programming

Here is a video that compile all the evidences that support the above statement: https://youtu.be/FYDu_ix00qM

The biggest evidence seems to be the Split brain experiments which gives rise to two different personalities on splitting the corpus callosum of the brain. Here is the complete argument:

-Soul is an immaterial thing that is supposed to play a role in giving rise to consciousness (Thats what the most popular accepted belief)

-Lets assume soul is responsible for "x" feature in consciousness. (It has to have some role in consciousness otherwise its an invisible gardener)

-You split the brain in two half. Both the half's have all the features of consciousness along with "x".

-Immaterial soul cannot be split. And we know that both half is not accessed by a common soul as both halves are expressing features "x" differently. For example in the above video one half of brain in the experiment is theist and the other is atheist. The feature "belief" is different in both halves.

-You can argue that soul is connects to or is present in one half only. But that shows that the other half can have the feature "x" without the soul. So it makes soul an unnecessary hypothesis.

Hey guys, I made a thread like this a couple of weeks ago, today I have some free time so shoot me any questions you would like to have answered about the neuroscience behind movement or training in general. I try to answer always with scientific proof or trends in either way in my head.

Here was the first discussion in case you missed it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/climbharder/comments/e9mog2/ama_neuroscientist_athletic_trainer_with_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

Hope to find some interesting questions and have good discussions! Shoot me what you would like to know.

EDIT: I do not know where the downvotes are coming from, I am here willingly sharing my experience as a neurocentric coach, medical profession and Ph.D. student in neuroscience. It is free advice from different fields coming together. If you have any disagreements with what I write please feel free to engage in a discussion.

Community Statistics:

/r/Neuroscience has been experiencing rapid growth the past couple of months, averaging over 50,000 uniques and almost 200,000 pageviews this fall alone. We also broke the 60,000 subscriber barrier earlier today, and we're seeing consistent growth in user engagement on major posts. Put simply -- things are going well.

Rule Changes:

Unfortunately, our recent expansions have highlighted some issues communities like ours have been grappling with for a while now -- specifically, the spread of misinformation and the administration of medical advice by students, laymen, hobbyists, and quacks.

In an attempt to counter this problem, we've decided to commit to a change in the subreddit's direction: We are officially aiming to turn /r/neuroscience into a more strict, academic community. To do this, we are adjusting our ruleset as follows:

• Blanket ban on pop sci articles.

  > We're taking our pop sci policy to the next step by establishing a ban on popular science articles -- you can find our definition of the term here.

• Laymen's Questions FAQ & Megathread

  > In an effort to keep more basic and repetitive questions to a limit, we will be redirecting apparent laymen to a megathread meant for these types of questions and discussions. Said thread will also include a fitting FAQ.

• Career Opportunity Megathread

  > We'll be maintaining a new monthly megathread in which users can post any openings and career opportunities they may come across. Dedicated reddit bots will also be crossposting items from the Systems Neuroscience google group.

• Expansion of the AMA Series

  > As you have likely noticed by now, we've been organizing monthly AMAs with various researchers, teams, and workshops. We'll continue to do so, and are hoping to ramp up the frequency of these AMAs as well. If you're part of a team doing interesting work in the field and think that you might be a good fit, feel free to contact us here.

We know that not everyone is going to agree with the change in our direction, but we nonetheless deem it prudent given the current condition of neuroscience on reddit.

I’m currently a Junior studying Psychology B.S. and Neuroscience B.S..I’m interested into going into a PhD program to study neuroscience. I’m currently volunteering in a psychology lab with human participants as well as neuroscience lab that works with rat models. I’m torn between working with animal models and human participants. I’m wondering what other labs and fields of neuroscience there are that use human participants? I am more interested in molecular and cellular neuroscience but I am still open to other fields as well.

I am interesting studying neuroscience, but the field is large and diverse. How did you determine which area to focus on? Did you explore several areas first, if so how?

Off the top of my head, I find the following to be interesting: modeling neural networks/systems, neural correlates of consciousness (especially perception, learning and memory), neuropharmacology (drugs!), and neurodegenerative/neurological disease.

I am a psychology student and have been drawn to neuroscience and I decided to simply see what I can start learning about on my own. This was way more fun than I anticipated, thanks to Robert Sapolsky. His book Behave is by far one of the best non fictions I have ever read. It is easy to understand, yet very detailed; very factual, yet surprisingly entertaining. It is a great introduction to neuroscience for those beginners like myself. Someone was asking for book recommendations and I suggested this one, but the books is so good I think it needed a post of its own for those eager new neuroscience students that may need direction.

I think this is interesting because serotonin typically (but not always) excites other neurons to increase brain activity, so there must be a unique signal transduction pathway for this inhibitory phenomenon.

I am an undergrad in India. My college doesn't offer any neuroscience/neurobiology courses until next year, and those too are very short (only a semester-long) and small in number (I'd say 3-4 max over 5 years of my college education). I want to do research in neuroscience and have hence been reading papers and going through text-books (Purves mostly) to improve my understanding of the basics. However, there is no structure to what I am studying. I just skim the book/website for any interesting chapters/papers, and then proceed to read them. Since I know most of the basics, MOOCs feel like a waste of time because they often start with stuff I already know. By the time they have reached the interesting stuff, I have moved on to other topics and interests.

So what I am asking here is this- what resources would you recommend for me that would make my learning more structured? I would like something which helps me cover any gaps in my knowledge that I might have, without requiring an entire "Intro to Neuroscience" course again.

On a side note, which online "Intro to Neuroscience" course that you would recommend? One which covers more than the basics (say, some basic animal behaviour, etc.) and has resources available online (video lectures, notes, etc.)?

A lot of people here read the sidebar. The regulars do, anyways. The past week I checked the sub and was concerned that we had been getting an influx of pop psych users dropping articles. There has been enough sporadic posts that can be prevented on the sub if people just read the sidebar. We aren't medical professionals, and no medical professional will consult you for free if they want to support themselves. If you want to ask about mental disorders there are other places for that. If you think your start up or someone elses looks fishy it probably is. Its right there in the side bar.

Neurophilosophy also exists for those big what if questions. No one, even the people studying the brain will give you anything but an educated subjective reply.

I think its ok to ask questions, especially if its related to neuroscience. I get that everyone here has a different background. Not everyone is a neuroscientist. Continue encouraging those related questions.

I just want to read papers, ask questions about and talk science while I'm here.

Preface: I teach HS English and am a stickler for outlines in an academic context. I often argue that the small amount of "extra" work up front saves mountains of time and headaches in the end, plus you'll end up with a better end product. So of course I brought that mentality to my writing.

The problem, I realized after having published two novels and am finishing up my third, was that I was using the same outline structure I would use for an essay and that TOTALLY doesn't work (at least as well as I thought it would).

So the basic essay structure is split up into different sections. The idea being as concise and specific as possible. A skeleton or framework of the bigger work. I mimicked that for my writing. But what it really boiled down to was a fancy looking plot diagram - which works to a degree.

The problem that I ran into over and over again with the traditional outline was that there were too many blind spots that I had to wing on the spot. I assumed that I would piecemeal the parts together during the drafting process. So I would write, then delete, then write, and delete and so on.

The reason, I finally realized, was that when drafting, I was focused on both style and plot (note that this is why people say first draft worst draft. What they're actually saying is that your first draft should focus entirely on plot elements and subsequent drafts focus on style). I kept spinning my wheels in the mud.

So I dropped back and tried something a bit different. I went old school. Grabbed a pen and paper and wrote a scene by scene detail of what happens in the chapter I was stuck on. It got me out of my hole instantly. I detailed the remainder of the book this way. When everything was said in done, I had about 15 pages front and back hand-written of the entirety of my book (think like you were reading a chapter summary on Sparknotes - that's what it read like).

The reason this works is that when I go to open Google Docs or whatever, I don't have to focus on plot at all. That's already been done for me. Instead I focus on style. So on my paper it might say "Timmy walks to school while daydreaming about his crush and realizes he forgot his lunchbox" on the first line. I'll then start focusing on the stylistic way of delivering that (to me, the fun part of writing). Then I'll highlight it on my paper which I now treat as a checklist.

The end product is so much better. Yes, obviously, I still have to revise, but this, for me, allows me to focus on oth