Hi Dave,

some time ago I've read two books related to neuroplasticity. I thought one of the major discoveries was that the brain is actually capable of continuous "reconfiguration" through our whole life.

Why are you saying that after 25 we (may) lose that capacity?

Far less likely to between 25 and 45 unless there is a major shift in context/situation according to my reading, especially in respect of attitudes and willingness to enforce them

Great interview...

First, I think we need to be able to talk about "individuals", as well as HAVE TO, but yes without trying to talk about them in isolation of social context. I think an opposite problem (and one that really gets me going!) occurs when people try to talk about social context in isolation of individuals. So people need to agree and use language which notes the overlap and the play between the two.

On the neuroplasticity, I have read a good book called "Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain" which is NOT a "how to" or "self help", but a work between a western neuroscientist, and the Dalai Lama. It speaks directly to this point, and our capacities to change (but reiterating the cognitive/neuro "entrainment" that sets in as we age // but which is not that evident in 30 year veteran Buddhist monks)... Further, this probably gets backs to a Consciousness argument

In regards to individual value, what do you think about something like this? When people do not recognize individual value to a situation, things like a person being mugged in a crowd and nobody caring, can happen... because nobody thinks about their individualness to the situation... they surrender themselves to the idea (to the "social context") that the crowd will step in where they choose not to, or are unaware of.

I personally believe that this is why specialization of education and labour will almost inevitably lead to greater individual dependence on social constructs ("social context") such as government... (I am personally a libertarian, so I feel a person should posses broad knowledge). Hypothetically, me needing someone to grow, cook, and prepare my food because I choose to spend all my time being a banker...

In regards to young people spending time in other cultures... I would agree as well, but also merely that we get more of where we spend our time. So it still comes down to a conscious judgement of values and such of a culture (with a little good or bad luck?). Afterall, the reason why we end up where we are is because of how the past unfolded.

Also, how many different cultures do you think we could find in the average young person's social networks? I would suggest a GREAT number... including very radical ones. So in regards to exposure, we have to be careful about just simply wanting people to be exposed to CERTAIN different cultures, which might seem different, or where merely ANY DIFFERENT cultures would do.

I am 25, so my view my be a little tainted... as well as beginning my journey of cognitive entrainment (or maybe "entrancement"?).

I'm talking about identity in the transcript Mark. Are we isolated individuals or as an identity within in the context of a web of social obligations.

Otherwise I am afraid to say that I find Libertarianism foolish at best and evil at worst (Rand and her followers)

Good to know my brain is still plastic.....

Hi - Problem here is that individualism and active social engagement are NOT mutually exclusive.

The group you mention, Gen-Y, 80 million people born after 1990, are hyper-connected AND hyper-individual. These properties are pluralistic and coexistent.

Social context, community, faith, family AND individualism, immediacy, happiness define the Gen Y demographic.

Dim labels like libertarian and gratuitous factionalism give way to experience and participation to shape outlooks for Gen-Y.

In the elastic Gen-Y mental model Milton Friedman and Barrack Obama happily and constructively coexist.

Everything is individualistic such as iTunes and MySpace AND everything is sociallly connected such as iTunes and MySpace.

Quite to the contrary, the 80m millennials, with gobs of brain plasticity, are the heroic Randian archtype AND socially engaged. Their highest moral purpose is individual happiness ‘Aynd’ social relevancy! Woo-hoo!

The newly discovered youth-based primacy of the individual in unusual places like China is driving classic liberalism and free market economics while in the USA the growth of Gen-Y religiosity and headlong flight to traditional social and faith-based institutions is driving their focus on community, family and social context.

Hmmm. Interesting. Mutually exclusive and labeled? I don’t think so.

Dying generations like the Baby Boomers always strive to Balkanize new generations with their partitions, boundaries, political orientations, e.g., the Generation Gap.

Generational relativism is a difficult skill. However, generational literacy delivers the essential and necessary hybrid comprehension of the zeitgeist and cultural evolution.

Above all, remember, it’s all a work-in-progress!

-j
http://1id.com/=jheuristic

Sorry John I simply don't buy the whole Gen X Gen Y stereotyping. I think the evidence for it is flimsy at best. Its a prime example of Balkanisation ......