It’s good to think- but not too much, scientists say

The author, Kate Alcock, opens with a general statement trying to engage the reader in a more philosophical article. The article suggests that the functions of the brain and how much we think have a direct correlation on the impact of the brain.

The article begins with an introduction into the biology and the effects of too much thinking. There are also negative association in doing too much thinking as it can cause poor memory and a higher susceptibility to depression. This author is explicitly suggesting that ill health is affected by too much or to little thinking. The sub-heading ‘illness link’, which allows an easy flows into the next part of the article and reinforces this point of view.

Kate Alcock backs her claim by referring to the biological effects and uses the scientific language regarding these issues. In her use of professional language the reader has a sense of complete understanding on the part of the author as well as creating and image that she posses in depth knowledge.

After referring to a number of studies and quotes, the author suggests a connection between the impacts on the brain and mental disorders which seaways into the summary. Here the author explains that all individuals are affected differently. It is especially important for individuals with mental illnesses to be able to recognize disorders within themselves. Hopefully, this would encourage people to get help, since mental health professional may improve many lives. It is interesting to ponder the effects this article may have on the readers, readers who were blissfully unaware of their disorders and were content until this article showed them otherwise. The question is now of what these people may have to live with, in regards to their awakening condition. Even though the article mainly contends with minor mental disorders, the question is if these people will need to seek help now, if this article is helpful if it brings to light something of liveable ignorance.

I feel that this article lacks a lot of substance. There isn’t much of a position that the author conveys. In my personal opinion it raises interesting questions for debate without any real solution for rectification.