Brain Myths & Folk Psychology: Let's not include any misleading myths in conflict resolution (like perhaps mirror neurons?)

To spread accuracy, Professor Amy Shelton at Johns Hopkins is teaching a course this semester called Brain Myths & Folk Psychology. She sent me the Brain Myths syllabus (and in her e-mail said this class is much fun to teach). After looking at the readings and lecture topics, I wish I could be one of her students. The course goal:

. . .is to explore popular notions about the brain and psychology and to discuss what science has actually revealed about them.  In the process, we will introduce you to major concepts, questions, and research techniques in cognitive and systems neuroscience.

The slides from each lecture are posted at the course site so you can see part of what has been presented.  Enjoy some myth debunking.

Today many brain myths or exaggerations are being perpetuated that relate to conflict. When you hear something about the brain that seems that it would be useful in conflict resolution, be sure to take a look at the underlying research. And even the research may not give you the whole picture. Science has much still to learn about the brain so we at BonP choose to be conservative in our analysis and recommendations. Many are moving in the opposite direction and making assertions that are not yet supported by the science.

An excellent lesson in point: mirror neurons. In "Cells That Read Minds?," Alison Gopnik discusses "the myth of mirror neurons."

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, neuroscientists found

a population of cells that fired whenever a monkey prepared to act but also when it watched another animal act. They called these cells "mirror neurons." It didn't take long for scientists and science writers to speculate that mirror neurons might serve as the physiological basis for a wide range of social behaviors, from altruism to art appreciation. Headlines like "Cells That Read Minds" or "How Brain's 'Mirrors' Aid Our Social Understanding" tapped into our intuitions about connectedness. Maybe this cell, with its mellifluous name, gives us our special capacity to understand one another—to care, to learn, and to communicate. Could mirror neurons be responsible for human language, culture, empathy, and morality?

The myth of mirror neurons may not do much harm. Perhaps it's even good for science that in the 21st century we turn to the brain, rather than gods and monsters, for our mythical images. Still, science and science writing are supposed to get us closer to the truth, while the myth of mirror neurons may do just the opposite. Instead of teaching us about how the mind works, it may perpetuate some broad misconceptions about neuroscience and what the study of the brain can tell us about human nature.

The study of the brain cannot tell us all about human nature or even a lot about our nature. I am leery whenever I hear someone say neuroscience has many of the answers to who we are and why we act—and love and hate and fight and care.

Gopnik has more to say. She is quoted in "I feel your pain," an article in Salon by Gordy Slack.

To U.C. Berkeley critic Gopnik, the significance of mirror neurons "is blown way out of proportion." She says their power to explain consciousness, language and empathy "is just a metaphor." As a psychologist, Gopnik views behavior at a different resolution than the neurologists do. She bristles at the idea that science can find hard-wired explanations in the brain for complex behaviors. "You never get single neurons calculating anything," she says. "What you've got are these enormous suites and interactions and computation among many different levels of neurons all calculating different things. And also changing what they calculate even from moment to moment."

. . . "The idea that a kind of neuron alone could explain empathy or behavior or self-consciousness simply makes no sense.

"It's just as likely that those neurons are mirroring because people are imitating each other and feeling empathy, not the other way around," says Gopnik.  . . . [S]he is impatient with "the giant illogical leaps" that she says neurologists sometimes take in reaching overly broad conclusions. "Scientists have always been susceptible to the temptation of thinking that they've solved the secrets of the universe," she says. "And neurologists are no different."

Gropnik gives us an important reminder that the workings of the mind and the brain are not reducible to single functions and places on the brain map. The brain and its parts are a team and a system, best working in collaboration with, and under the direction of, the mind. In order to facilitate conflict resolution, we need to have the big-picture whole and not just knowledge of individual parts.

Comments

[Dr. Mike]

"...under the direction of, the mind."

What is physically real? The brain is a physical (read: real) entity. "Mind" is a function of the brain. It is not a physical entity, nor can it have any real "effect" on a physical entity. The illusion of the mind is critically important for human society. Yet, it is still an illusion. The role of neuroscience is to understand how physical brains can produce this neat illusion of mind. This is perhaps accomplished partly by mirror neurons.

[StephanieWestAllen]

Thanks for your comment, Dr. Mike. I believe if you have been following this blog you will know that we definitely do not believe the mind is a function of the brain. That's part of the reason this blog is called Brains On Purpose—the mind creates the brain on purpose using self-directed neuroplasticity.

[charmayne]

i love your site! wish i had more time to look around...ah, modernity.

psych students will be keen to visit, and i will coming back myself to learn more about mindful conflict responses.

[Senia.com Positive Psychology Coaching]

Stephanie,
This is one of my favorites of your posts. Thank you. Intriguing. I'll think about this one long after I've walked away from my computer.
Thank you,
Senia

[Dr. Jeffrey]

With all due respect, the evidence supports Dr Mike. It does not matter whether you "believe" the mind to be independent. We are talking about science. And the main result of the past hundred years of physical science is that everything is understandable in terms of the interactions of its parts. Cells are made of atoms, atoms are made of electrons, up quarks and down quarks. All of these parts interact according to well understood physical principles. And in large quantities over standard human time scales, these parts interact deterministically.

[georg summar]

Where is the evidence?

[Blargh]

http://www.imprint.co.uk/metzinger/

[Dr Alex Palazzo]

"we definitely do not believe the mind is a function of the brain"

That flies in the face of much research. How do you explain Brocca's findings that the ablation of one region of the brain impacts the ability to produce language? How do you explain Wernicke's findings that if you ablate another area you destroy the ability to understand language? How do you explain Dr Penfield's experiments? How do explain the alteration of brain function by drugs?

The simple truth of the mater is that is you alter the physical brain this changes the functioning of the mind. To suggest otherwise shows an ignorance of over 100 years of experimental research.