Le Journal

In 2014, a team of neuroscientists, including Dr. Earl Miller, the Picower Professor of Neuroscience at MIT, gave macaque monkeys a carefully standardized task: categorize visual dot patterns into one of two groups. As the animals learned, the researchers recorded brain activity, hoping to understand how learning changes neural activity. Nearly a decade later, Miller — alongside researchers from Dartmouth, including Dr. Anand Pathak and Prof. Richard Granger — gave the same task to a very different subject. It wasn’t a primate at all, but a computational model that the team wired to work like the real brain circuits that control learning and decision-making. Dr. Miller and his colleagues hoped it would produce patterns of neural activity similar to what they observed in the macaques. What they didn’t expect was that the model’s output would point them to something they had missed the first time around. “We saw some peculiar brain activity in the model,” Miller says. “There was a group of neurons that predicted the wrong answer, yet they kept getting stronger as the model learned. So we went back to the original macaque data, and the same signal was there, hiding in plain sight. It wasn’t a quirk of the model — the monkeys’ brains were doing it too. Even as their performance improved, both the real and simulated brains maintained a reserve of neurons that continued to predict the incorrect answer.” The new work, published in Nature Communications, puts a name to these overlooked signals: incongruent neurons, or ICNs, and explores theories as to why a primate brain might want to keep alternate options in mind, even if they’re not the right ones at the moment. Beyond identifying a previously unrecognized class of neurons involved in learning, the study shows that the model behaves like a brain and generates realistic brain activity, even without being trained on neural data. The findings could have major implications for testing potential neurological drugs and for using computational models to investigate how cognition emerges and functions. Built like a brain Computational models use mathematical equations to express the electrical and chemical activity of neurons. In that sense, the model is “wired” to behave like a brain. Most existing models fall into one of two camps: those that are biologically accurate and those designed to perform cognitive tasks like learning and decision-making. Biologically detailed models are built to mimic a brain, and they can reproduce physiological activity such as neurons spiking and oscillating. But they don’t typically include the more complex circuitry involved in cognitive tasks like learning or decision-making.  On the other hand, cognitive models, including the neural networks that run AI, can reliably perform cognitive tasks like learning and categorization, but the underlying architecture is much simpler than a real brain. That means that they can’t tell you how a real brain performs these tasks — they just perform the task using other machinery.  “It was eerily similar to what we saw happening in the macaques’ brains,” Miller tells Big Think. So, if researchers want to use these models to predict how the brain performs cognitive tasks, they need models that are both built like a brain and able to perform cognitive tasks. That was the gap Miller and his colleagues set out to fill. In this case, Pathak and Granger, from Dartmouth, built a model of the corticostriatal circuit, a loop connecting the brain’s cortex, involved in perception, planning, and memory, with the brain’s striatum, which helps select actions and learn from feedback. The circuit is central to decision-making and learning, and it’s exactly what the macaque monkeys rely on during the visual categorization task. The corticostriatal circuit is also implicated in disorders ranging from Parkinson’s disease to schizophrenia. If the team could build a model that was biologically realistic and capable of…

Recipe content creator Henry Laporte (aka Salt Hank) opened Salt Hank’s in the West Village to much fanfare in 2025. Laporte, who has nearly 5 million followers across social media platforms, teamed up with chef Daniel Rubenfeld (a Thomas Keller alum) to make their viral French dip. The restaurant only serves a handful of menu items: said sandwich, shoestring fries, and accouterments like cole slaw. (Rumor has it a chicken Parm dip is now available on Wednesdays, too.) What to order You’re here for the $32 French dip. Piled onto an almost-too-crusty Frenchette demi baguette (Laporte tasted nearly 150 options before picking this one) are tender, dry-aged prime rib, Provolone, horseradish aioli, and seven-hour caramelized onions. The sandwich is so large that you may need to unhinge your jaw to eat it. It comes with an au jus cup that’s too tiny to comfortably dunk your sandwich into (if you’re a corner dipper, it’ll suffice), but it is delicious. Fellow horseradish lovers, order a side of the aioli. The amount on the sandwich isn’t enough. I don’t know if I’d call them “fries” as much as “potato sticks.” What I do know is that while I’m normally a shoestring fry hater, I still think you should order them. What to drink Don’t skip the limeade. The drink cuts through the richness of the sandwich. Insider tip Get here at least 30 minutes before opening. When I arrived at 11 a.m. on a Saturday, the line was down the block. Near opening time, an employee walks down the line and asks if you want to eat inside or get your sandwich to-go. If you choose indoors, they have a seat ready for you when it’s your turn to eat. Although there’s a substantial wait, getting your sandwich is smooth and efficient.

First thing: This has nothing to do with what direction UNC should or should not take with its basketball program or Hubert Davis. That conversation doesn’t interest me right now. Second thing: This has nothing to do with what Davis should or should not have done with respect to staffing, recruiting, defensive tactics, offensive scheme, or game management. Those conversations don’t interest me right now. My top five moments as a UNC basketball fan: The Shot: NCAA Finals 1982 May’s Day: NCAA Finals 2005 K’s Last Stand: NCAA Final Four 2022 K’s Final Home Game: ACC Regular Season, 2022 The Coronation: NCAA Finals 2009 In a program with a history as rich as ours, I’m sure many of you have a very different top five. I’m not going to explain why these five have such a hold on my memory. Please note that I heard my mother curse three times in her lifetime: twice during the Bloody Montross game and once during Tyler’s broken nose game. The joy in her voice on the phone after winning those last two games against K is something I’ll never forget. For those two wins alone, I could be a Davis fan for life. I love how Hubert became a Tar Heel. Dean Smith and Roy Williams advised Davis to attend a mid-major out of high school and work on his game there. They had doubts about his athleticism and how that might limit his ability to contribute on a perennial title contender. During an in-home visit, Davis responded to those concerns: “You might be right that I can’t play at that level, but you won’t know for sure unless you give me a chance.” After a couple of days, Dean offered him a scholarship but warned him that he might not play. Davis played a little and then a lot. His junior year, Davis, King Rice, George Lynch, and Rick Fox spearheaded UNC’s first trip back to a Final Four since the 1982 national championship. That eight-year drought, combined with the rise of Coach K’s career at Duke, had many UNC fans loudly chomping at the bit to move on from Dean Smith. Ending that drought helped lay the groundwork that would become UNC’s second national title under Smith. Davis, the guy who had to plead for a spot on UNC’s roster, left the program as a first-round NBA pick. Davis played a huge role in righting the ship with that Final Four run. The year prior, UNC had finished the season unranked while Duke made its third straight run to the final weekend. The ’90-‘91 Final Four was a finger in the eye of a lot of hot take headlines and talk radio (yes, those existed back then) proclaiming Smith obsolete, UNC basketball irrelevant, and Duke the new king of the hill. Lynch was the more complete player. Fox lead the team in points and charisma. Rice, a player infamously booed on his home floor, was the redemption story. Chilcutt was the hard hat grinder down low. Davis? Hubert Davis was the surprise, the missing piece and final ingredient whose .625 field goal percentage delivered timely buckets again and again. He wasn’t the best player on that team, but Davis was its second leading scorer and my favorite — the player who recruited Dean rather than being recruited to UNC and who made the most of it. For that alone, I could be a Davis fan for life. I loved Hubert’s work on ESPN. ESPN had not gone full Stephen A. Smith by the time Hubert got there, but things were definitely trending in that direction. Davis was entertaining and insightful, but he never played to the audience. He didn’t warp who he was to get attention; he never became an act. Being a media figure means a constant deluge of consultant advice to “be more this, be less that.” The name of the game had become “bright contrasts,” polarizing opinions that reduced everything to an either/or choice, everyone either a villain or hero. Davis refused to play that game, and he remained a compelling analyst by remaining true to himself. It was in my mind the embodiment of a UNC education. I love how much Hubert loves UNC. I’m a romantic about most things, I freely admit…

This article is an early look at our upcoming special issue on Mastery. Check back in on January 28 to catch the full issue. After years of studies and six months in New York, I was convinced I’d mastered English. I was cracking jokes with American friends, binge-watching shows without subtitles, and even thinking in English half the time. Then I moved to London for my first job at Google, and suddenly, I felt like I’d never truly master the language. Colleagues used phrases I’d never heard. Cultural references flew over my head. I found myself nodding along in meetings, pretending to understand jokes that left me completely lost. It felt terrible. I was encountering the growing pains inherent to mastery, but everything I’d been told about getting good at something had set me up to misinterpret this growth as failure. Our cultural narrative about mastery is not just incomplete. It’s actively misleading, and we’ve mythologized mastery in ways that make people quit right when they might be breaking into new territories. The five lies we tell ourselves about mastery The problem starts with how we think about mastery itself. We carry a set of deeply ingrained assumptions about how it works — assumptions that feel obvious and true, but that are actually counterproductive. Here are the most damaging ones: Misconception #1: Mastery is a destination. We imagine crossing a finish line where we’ll finally “arrive” as experts. Watch any master craftsperson, though, and you’ll see someone still questioning their approach, still discovering new techniques, still experimenting and pushing into uncharted territory. Misconception #2: Improvement is linear. We expect steady, measurable progress: practice more, get better, repeat. Reality looks more like a stock chart: long plateaus punctuated by sudden jumps, with occasional dips when you’re integrating something new. Misconception #3: Mastery requires extreme intensity. Research shows that sustainable, consistent practice beats sporadic bursts of intensity. Someone who practices 30 minutes daily for a year will typically outpace someone who practices 3 hours once a week. Misconception #4: Technique is everything. We obsess over the mechanics: the “right” way to hold the instrument, the perfect form, the exact method. But while technique matters enormously, so do mindset, feedback loops, rest, and environmental support. Misconception #5: Mastery feels easy once achieved. This is perhaps the most dangerous myth of all. Even masters experience frustration and have to revisit fundamentals, but they’ve learned to find satisfaction in the process itself, not just the outcomes. So, if all our assumptions about mastery are wrong, what actually works? The answer lies in how our brains learn and adapt. George Wylesol Achieving mastery through experimentation Our brains adapt most rapidly when faced with novel challenges, not repetitive drilling. Perhaps most importantly, studies on what researchers call “desirable difficulty” show that struggle isn’t a sign that you’re failing. It’s a sign that your brain is forming new neural pathways. That’s why experts don’t just repeat what they know — they constantly experiment at the edge of their abilities. Instead of grinding through repetition, they treat every practice session like a mini-laboratory. Here’s what that looks like: Run tiny experiments. Let go of the idea of mastery as a destination. Instead, experiment with different approaches. A programmer might experiment for a few days with coding without looking at Stack Overflow or ChatGPT. A musician might practice scales for 10 minutes before touching any songs for two weeks. These tiny experiments let you test the boundaries of your knowledge while embracing the in-betweens. Design feedback loops. Create systems that help you notice what’s working. You might track which new words you actually use in conversation, photograph your work at different stages to see patterns in your process, or ask for…

We’re into the back half of January, and (regular season) conference title races are beginning to take shape across college basketball. This week saw plenty of movement in the AP Top 25 polls, resulting from multiple upsets and ranked matchups on both the men’s and women’s side. Let’s take a look at where things stand now. Men’s Basketball AP Top 25 1. Arizona (61 first place votes) 2. UConn 3. Michigan 4. Purdue 5. Duke 6. Houston 7. Nebraska 8. Gonzaga 9. Iowa State 10. Michigan State 11. Illinois 12. Texas Tech 13. BYU 14. Virginia 15. Vanderbilt 16. Florida 17. Alabama 18. Clemson 19. Kansas 20. Arkansas 21. Georgia 22. North Carolina 23. Louisville 24. St. Louis 25. Miami (OH) Where is UNC? The Tar Heels had the biggest drop in this week’s poll, falling eight spots to #22 after losing back-to-back games at Stanford and Cal. Personally, I’m about 50/50 on whether they should be ranked at all, but we’ll likely get a definitive answer to that this week when they host Notre Dame (Wednesday) and travel to #14 Virginia (Saturday).  Biggest Winners Kansas reentered the poll at #19 after decisive home wins over then-#2 Iowa State and Baylor, St. Louis entered the poll for the first time since the 2020-21 season at #24 after improving to 17-1, and Miami (OH) earned its first ranking in 27 seasons at #25 after moving to 19-0. Within the poll, Clemson moved up four spots to #18 after home wins over Boston College and Miami (FL).  Biggest Losers Iowa State had the biggest fall after UNC, dropping seven spots to #9 after losing at Kansas and Cincinnati. Utah State went from #23 to unofficial #31 after losing at Grand Canyon, Tennessee went from #24 to unofficial #30 after a home loss to Kentucky, and Seton Hall went from #25 to receiving zero votes after home losses to then-#3 UConn and Butler.   Conference Breakdown Big 12: 6 Big Ten: 5 SEC: 5 ACC: 5 Big East: 1 WCC: 1 A-10: 1 MAC: 1 Marquee Matchups This Week #15 Vanderbilt (16-2) @ #20 Arkansas (13-5) – Tonight at 9:00 PM ET on ESPN #22 North Carolina (14-4) @ #14 Virginia (16-2) – Saturday at 2:00 PM ET on ESPN #11 Illinois (15-3) @ #4 Purdue (17-1) – Saturday at 3:00 PM ET on FOX #6 Houston (17-1) @ #12 Texas Tech (14-4) – Saturday at 6:30 PM ET on ESPN #23 Louisville (13-5) @ #5 Duke (17-1) – Monday at 7:00 PM ET on ESPN #1 Arizona (18-0) @ #13 BYU (16-2) – Monday at 9:00 PM ET on ESPN Women’s Basketball AP Top 25 UConn (30 first place votes) South Carolina UCLA Texas Vanderbilt LSU Michigan Louisville TCU Iowa Kentucky Ohio State Michigan State Baylor Maryland Oklahoma Tennessee Ole Miss Texas Tech Princeton Duke West Virginia Alabama Nebraska Washington Where is UNC? Still unranked, but up from unofficial #28 to unofficial #27 after beating Miami (FL) at home and Florida State on the road. The Tar Heels travel to face Georgia Tech on Thursday and host Syracuse on Sunday. If they win both of those games, there’s a decent chance they’ll find themselves back in the Top 25.  Biggest Winners Duke reentered the rankings at #21 after stretching its winning streak to 10 games, West Virginia reentered at #22 after a one-point home loss to then-#10 TCU and a road win at Cincinnati, and Washington reentered at #25 after beating Indiana on the road and Minnesota at home. Within the poll, Baylor moved up four spots to #14 after double-digit wins at Utah and BYU.  Biggest Losers Iowa State went from #19 to unofficial #31 after losing at Colorado and Oklahoma State, Notre Dame went from #23 to unofficial #28 after a home loss to then-#9 Louisville, and Illinois went from #25 to unofficial #26 after losing at then-#8 Michigan. Within the Top 25, Kentucky slid four spots to #11 after losing at Mississippi State.  Conference Breakdown SEC: 9 Big Ten: 7 Big 12: 5 ACC: 2 Big East: 1 Ivy League: 1 Marquee Matchups This Week #10 Iowa (16-2) @ #15 Maryland (17-3) – Thursday at 6:00 PM ET on NBC #11 Kentucky (17-3) @ #17…