The series is called Naturebang: “Becky Ripley and Emily Knight make sense of what it means to be human by looking to the natural world… Science meets storytelling with a philosophical twist.“
There are 35 episodes. I particularly liked the episode broadcast yesterday about the Clams.
“How do we extract the maximum amount of power from the sun? Becky Ripley and Emily Knight enlist the help of a giant, thousand-year old clam. And end up in the depths of space…
Featuring Professor Alison Sweeney at Yale University, and Mike Garrett from the Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics.
Produced and presented by Emily Knight and Becky Ripley“
There are few people visiting Learning from Dogs these days but so what! I do not publish posts to elicit comments or ‘Likes’, I just do it for my own pleasure, and if there are a very few who like my blog posts then that is a bonus.
Plus I cannot guarantee that some of these photographs have not appeared in earlier Picture Parades.
Came across this a few days ago and you will love it!
The new world comes up with some marvellous treats. Here I was listening to the radio (BBC – Radio 4) from Southern Oregon and they had this item about a Scottish thatcher using a variety of plants to thatch roofs. The thatcher had been thatching for years.
Then a quick search on the internet found this video:
An interesting article about the benefits of being active.
I try and stay as active as I can mainly by bicycle riding. This article from The Conversation shows the importance of this. It is just a shame that they do not mention being old and active; as in being 80!
ooOOoo
Some pro athletes keep getting better as they age − neuroscience can explain how they stay sharp
Recovery and mental resilience support the development of neuroplasticity, which helps athletes like Allyson Felix stay sharp. AP Photo/Charlie Riedel
In a world where sports are dominated by youth and speed, some athletes in their late 30s and even 40s are not just keeping up – they are thriving.
Novak Djokovic is still outlasting opponents nearly half his age on tennis’s biggest stages. LeBron James continues to dictate the pace of NBA games, defending centers and orchestrating plays like a point guard. Allyson Felix won her 11th Olympic medal in track and field at age 35. And Tom Brady won a Super Bowl at 43, long after most NFL quarterbacks retire.
The sustained excellence of these athletes is not just due to talent or grit – it’s biology in action. Staying at the top of their game reflects a trainable convergence of brain, body and mindset. I’m a performance scientist and a physical therapist who has spent over two decades studying how athletes train, taper, recover and stay sharp. These insights aren’t just for high-level athletes – they hold true for anyone navigating big life changes or working to stay healthy.
Increasingly, research shows that the systems that support high performance – from motor control to stress regulation, to recovery – are not fixed traits but trainable capacities. In a world of accelerating change and disruption, the ability to adapt to new changes may be the most important skill of all. So, what makes this adaptability possible – biologically, cognitively and emotionally?
The amygdala and prefrontal cortex
Neuroscience research shows that with repeated exposure to high-stakes situations, the brain begins to adapt. The prefrontal cortex – the region most responsible for planning, focus and decision-making – becomes more efficient in managing attention and making decisions, even under pressure.
During stressful situations, such as facing match point in a Grand Slam final, this area of the brain can help an athlete stay composed and make smart choices – but only if it’s well trained.
In contrast, the amygdala, our brain’s threat detector, can hijack performance by triggering panic, freezing motor responses or fueling reckless decisions. With repeated exposure to high-stakes moments, elite athletes gradually reshape this brain circuit.
They learn to tune down amygdala reactivity and keep the prefrontal cortex online, even when the pressure spikes. This refined brain circuitry enables experienced performers to maintain their emotional control.
Creating a brain-body loop
Brain-derived neurotrophic factor, or BDNF, is a molecule that supports adapting to changes quickly. Think of it as fertilizer for the brain. It enhances neuroplasticity: the brain’s ability to rewire itself through experience and repetition. This rewiring helps athletes build and reinforce the patterns of connections between brain cells to control their emotion, manage their attention and move with precision.
In moments like these, higher BDNF availability likely allows him to regulate his emotions and recalibrate his motor response, helping him to return to peak performance faster than his opponent.
Rewiring your brain
In essence, athletes who repeatedly train and compete in pressure-filled environments are rewiring their brain to respond more effectively to those demands. This rewiring, from repeated exposures, helps boost BDNF levels and in turn keeps the prefrontal cortex sharp and dials down the amygdala’s tendency to overreact.
This kind of biological tuning is what scientists call cognitive reserve and allostasis – the process the body uses to make changes in response to stress or environmental demands to remain stable. It helps the brain and body be flexible, not fragile.
Importantly, this adaptation isn’t exclusive to elite athletes. Studies on adults of all ages show that regular physical activity – particularly exercises that challenge both body and mind – can raise BDNF levels, improve the brain’s ability to adapt and respond to new challenges, and reduce stress reactivity.
Programs that combine aerobic movement with coordination tasks, such as dancing, complex drills or even fast-paced walking while problem-solving have been shown to preserve skills such as focus, planning, impulse control and emotional regulation over time.
After an intense training session or a match, you will often see athletes hopping on a bike or spending some time in the pool. These low-impact, gentle movements, known as active recovery, help tone down the nervous system gradually.
Serbian tennis player Novak Djokovic practices meditation, which strengthens the mental pathways that help with stress regulation. AP Photo/Kin Cheung
Over time, this convergence creates a trainable loop between the brain and body that is better equipped to adapt, recover and perform.
Lessons beyond sport
While the spotlight may shine on sporting arenas, you don’t need to be a pro athlete to train these same skills.
The ability to perform under pressure is a result of continuing adaptation. Whether you’re navigating a career pivot, caring for family members, or simply striving to stay mentally sharp as the world changes, the principles are the same: Expose yourself to challenges, regulate stress and recover deliberately.
While speed, agility and power may decline with age, some sport-specific skills such as anticipation, decision-making and strategic awareness actually improve. Athletes with years of experience develop faster mental models of how a play will unfold, which allows them to make better and faster choices with minimal effort. This efficiency is a result of years of reinforcing neural circuits that doesn’t immediately vanish with age. This is one reason experienced athletes often excel even if they are well past their physical prime.
Physical activity, especially dynamic and coordinated movement, boosts the brain’s capacity to adapt. So does learning new skills, practicing mindfulness and even rehearsing performance under pressure. In daily life, this might be a surgeon practicing a critical procedure in simulation, a teacher preparing for a tricky parent meeting, or a speaker practicing a high-stakes presentation to stay calm and composed when it counts. These aren’t elite rituals – they’re accessible strategies for building resilience, motor efficiency and emotional control.
Humans are built to adapt – with the right strategies, you can sustain excellence at any stage of life.
Earlier this month, a homeowner called Tidewater Wildlife Rescue with an urgent request. A common garter snake was hopelessly tangled in a piece of netting in their yard. Could someone come help?
Rescue volunteer Serenity Reiner quickly headed to the scene.
TIDEWATER WILDLIFE RESCUE
Reiner and her rescue partner, Daniel, used scissors to cut away big pieces of the net. Then, Daniel gently held the snake as Reiner snipped away netting closer to the animal’s body.
“We were very focused,” Reiner told The Dodo. “We wanted to be as fast as possible to limit [her] stress.”
The rescuers were almost finished when they noticed something amazing — the snake was giving birth in their hands.
TIDEWATER WILDLIFE RESCUE
Reiner hastily removed the remaining netting as the mama snake birthed two babies. Then, she took the snake and her little ones to a wooded area behind the house and released them back into the wild.
Surprisingly, despite their size, baby garter snakes don’t need to live with their mom for very long. In fact, as the rescue notes, these young snakes are completely independent from the moment they’re born and can immediately find food on their own.
TIDEWATER WILDLIFE RESCUE
According to the U.S. National Park Service, garter snakes typically give birth to 15-40 babies at a time. Reiner suspects this mama welcomed many more little ones into the world once she was safe in the forest.
The rescuer encouraged the homeowners to use animal-safe netting next time. She’s grateful that, in this case, everything turned out OK.
“I felt so much joy knowing that she was able to go back to her normal life unharmed,” Reiner said.
From Saturday, 26th July until Thursday, 7th August we will have family staying with us and the likelihood is that there will not be any blog posts during this period. By family I mean my daughter, son-in-law, and my grandson.
It is what we share with animals, but it is not as straightforward as one thinks!
The range of thinking, in terms of logical thinking, even in humans, is enormous. And when we watch animals, especially mammals, it is clear that they are operating in a logical manner. By ‘operating’ I am referring to their thought processes.
So a recent article in The Conversation jumped out at me. Here it is:
ooOOoo
Humans and animals can both think logically − but testing what kind of logic they’re using is tricky
Can a monkey, a pigeon or a fish reason like a person? It’s a question scientists have been testing in increasingly creative ways – and what we’ve found so far paints a more complicated picture than you’d think.
Imagine you’re filling out a March Madness bracket. You hear that Team A beat Team B, and Team B beat Team C – so you assume Team A is probably better than Team C. That’s a kind of logical reasoning known as transitive inference. It’s so automatic that you barely notice you’re doing it.
It turns out humans are not the only ones who can make these kinds of mental leaps. In labs around the world, researchers have tested many animals, from primates to birds to insects, on tasks designed to probe transitive inference, and most pass with flying colors.
As a scientist focused on animal learning and behavior, I work with pigeons to understand how they make sense of relationships, patterns and rules. In other words, I study the minds of animals that will never fill out a March Madness bracket – but might still be able to guess the winner.
Logic test without words
The basic idea is simple: If an animal learns that A is better than B, and B is better than C, can it figure out that A is better than C – even though it’s never seen A and C together?
In the lab, researchers test this by giving animals randomly paired images, one pair at a time, and rewarding them with food for picking the correct one. For example, animals learn that a photo of hands (A) is correct when paired with a classroom (B), a classroom (B) is correct when paired with bushes (C), bushes (C) are correct when paired with a highway (D), and a highway (D) is correct when paired with a sunset (E). We don’t know whether they “understand” what’s in the picture, and it is not particularly important for the experiment that they do.
In a transitive inference task, subjects learn a series of rewarded pairs – such as A+ vs. B–, B+ vs. C– – and are later tested on novel pairings, like B vs. D, to see whether they infer an overall ranking. Olga Lazareva, CC BY-ND
One possible explanation is that the animals that learn all the tasks create a mental ranking of these images: A > B > C > D > E. We test this idea by giving them new pairs they’ve never seen before, such as classroom (B) vs. highway (D). If they consistently pick the higher-ranked item, they’ve inferred the underlying order.
What’s fascinating is how many species succeed at this task. Monkeys, rats, pigeons – even fish and wasps – have all demonstrated transitive inference in one form or another.
The twist: Not all tasks are easy
But not all types of reasoning come so easily. There’s another kind of rule called transitivity that is different from transitive inference, despite the similar name. Instead of asking which picture is better, transitivity is about equivalence.
In this task, animals are shown a set of three pictures and asked which one goes with the center image. For example, if white triangle (A1) is shown, choosing red square (B1) earns a reward, while choosing blue square (B2) does not. Later, when red square (B1) is shown, choosing white cross (C1) earns a reward while choosing white circle (C2) does not. Now comes the test: white triangle (A1) is shown with white cross (C1) and white circle (C2) as choices. If they pick white cross (C1), then they’ve demonstrated transitivity.
In a transitivity task, subjects learn matching rules across overlapping sets – such as A1 matches B1, B1 matches C1 – and are tested on new combinations, such as A1 with C1 or C2, to assess whether they infer the relationship between A1 and C1. Olga Lazareva, CC BY-ND
The change may seem small, but species that succeed in those first transitive inference tasks often stumble in this task. In fact, they tend to treat the white triangle and the white cross as completely separate things, despite their common relationship with the red square. In my recently published review of research using the two tasks, I concluded that more evidence is needed to determine whether these tests tap into the same cognitive ability.
Small differences, big consequences
Why does the difference between transitive inference and transitivity matter? At first glance, they may seem like two versions of the same ability – logical reasoning. But when animals succeed at one and struggle with the other, it raises an important question: Are these tasks measuring the same kind of thinking?
The apparent difference between the two tasks isn’t just a quirk of animal behavior. Psychology researchers apply these tasks to humans in order to draw conclusions about how people reason.
For example, say you’re trying to pick a new almond milk. You know that Brand A is creamier than Brand B, and your friend told you that Brand C is even waterier than Brand B. Based on that, because you like a thicker milk, you might assume Brand A is better than Brand C, an example of transitive inference.
But now imagine the store labels both Brand A and Brand C as “barista blends.” Even without tasting them, you might treat them as functionally equivalent, because they belong to the same category. That’s more like transitivity, where items are grouped based on shared relationships. In this case, “barista blend” signals the brands share similar quality.
Researchers often treat these types of reasoning as measuring the same ability. But if they rely on different mental processes, they might not be interchangeable. In other words, the way scientists ask their questions may shape the answer – and that has big implications for how they interpret success in animals and in people.
This difference could affect how researchers interpret decision-making not only in the lab, but also in everyday choices and in clinical settings. Tasks like these are sometimes used in research on autism, brain injury or age-related cognitive decline.
If two tasks look similar on the surface, then choosing the wrong one might lead to inaccurate conclusions about someone’s cognitive abilities. That’s why ongoing work in my lab is exploring whether the same distinction between these logical processes holds true for people.
Just like a March Madness bracket doesn’t always predict the winner, a reasoning task doesn’t always show how someone got to the right answer. That’s the puzzle researchers are still working on – figuring out whether different tasks really tap into the same kind of thinking or just look like they do. It’s what keeps scientists like me in the lab, asking questions, running experiments and trying to understand what it really means to reason – no matter who’s doing the thinking.
Learning from Dogs 