Brains On Purpose™

New article: Using neuroscience to reframe behavior for organizational change

An article co-authored by Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz has just been published by Booz & Company's strategy + business. From “That’s the Way We (Used to) Do Things Around Here”:

With a little knowledge of neuroscience, reframing behavior can be the essence of organizational change.

When corporate leaders talk about change, they usually have a desired result in mind: gains in performance, a better approach to customers, the solution to a formidable challenge. They know that if they are to achieve this result, people throughout the company need to change their behavior and practices, and that can’t happen by simple decree. How, then, does it happen? In the last few years, insights from neuroscience have begun to answer that question. New behaviors can be put in place, but only by reframing attitudes that are so entrenched that they are almost literally embedded in the physical pathways of employees’ neurons. These beliefs have been reinforced over the years through everyday routines and hundreds of workplace conversations. They all have the same underlying theme: “That’s the way we do things around here.”

This phrase (and others like it) typically refers to the complex, subtle practices that become ingrained in an organization’s culture, to the point where they become part of

"Pseudoscience masquerading as neuroscience": Is there "a growing academic obsession with soundbites and 'impact'"?

Along the lines of two recent posts about silly science (here and here) is this article from today's Guardian about the possible problems with the public learning science (as opposed to pseudoscience) from researchers. Excerpt:

The famous philosopher Karl Popper once noted that genuine science and pseudoscience are difficult to distinguish. To the uninitiated they can look the same, sound the same and smell the same. If we ourselves, the so-called "experts", actively conspire to mix fantasy and reality, what hope can the public have of learning about genuine scientific discoveries?

From earlier in the article:

These questions highlight the unacceptable gulf between, on the one hand, the evidence-bound conclusions reached in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and on the other, the heavy spin applied by scientists to achieve publicity in

Free primer on the brain and nervous system from Society for Neuroscience

Download Brain Facts here. From the Web site:

Brain Facts is a 74-page primer on the brain and nervous system, published by SfN. Designed for a lay audience as an introduction to neuroscience, Brain Facts is also a valuable educational resource used by high school teachers and students who participate in Brain Awareness Week.

The 2008 edition updates all sections and includes new information on brain development, learning and memory, language, neurological and psychiatric illnesses, potential therapies, and more.

The Society has recently been awarded $1.53 million for their Web site BrainFacts.org. The press release (EurekAlert):

Neuroscience of conflict: The silly part of this approach is getting even sillier

Neuro-nonsense abounds in what people are saying about the brain in conflict and how to harness the brain for dispute resolution. I understand the quest for easy answers and simple steps, but the brain is too complex to be reduced to cookbook clarity.

The most we can say is, "We have these clues, and those clues may indicate that doing _____ [insert recommended behavior] might be helpful sometimes for people in dispute." That's it! That is the level at which conflict professionals can benefit from brain science. If you hear any greater degree of certainty about how the brain behaves, be very wary. We are not yet (and may never be) at the place where we can make statements about the brain that are easily, simply, quickly, and predictably useful in conflict resolution.

Knowing the clues we have about the brain can be helpful, but that knowledge probably will only leave you in awe of the brain's complexity and of how much we still have to learn. For example, we know that a person who is acting from his reactive brain is different from one who is operating from a more reflective brain state. Can we say exactly where reactivity and reflectiveness reside in the brain? And exactly how to move from one to the other? No.

We can work with clients to recognize the difference, knowing that difference may vary from person to person. And from situation to situation. And from day to day.

If you are interested in the brain and what we know about how it operates, then I highly, highly, highly recommend that you read

Be on guard for psychobabble and brain silliness: Are the numbers of science groupies increasing?

The number of neurosci groupies seems to be growing. A new study comes out and bing bang, zing zang, a link to some journalist's article about the research blasts around Twitter and wherever else URLs circle and echo these days. The groupies go into high action mode, alerting everyone about the new study.

As I have watched this field of brain science for a few years, I have become less and less likely to jump on the bandwagon of a new piece of research. Wisdom invites waiting. I may not be wise (perhaps a wee bit seasoned), but I do hope I am not in the wide-eyed, credulous groupie camp.

The number of those in awe of fMRI or other state-of-the-art technology is not small. Plus neurorealism abounds. And studies that come out of a lab at an institution of higher learning seem to be taken as gospel. Therefore, I was pleased to see an interview of Carol Tavris in which she talks of the need for caution when following developments in science.

Excerpt from "Champions of Psychology" (Association for Psychological Science's Observer):

The media do often get it wrong. [One neuroscientist estimates they get it right about a third of the time.] The reporter is usually writing on a deadline, and there is no time to check your quote; often the interviewer knows little or nothing about the topic. But “the media” are as varied as psychologists, and many interviewers are very competent. So know what you are getting into [or whom you are reading]. ...

...

Psychological scientists have long been fighting