A word recently has been in my thoughts; that word spends a lot of time in my mind. In fact, I had been seriously toying with the idea of honoring one of the letters in CARVE, acronym for key parts of my dispute resolution model, by letting it stand for the word.
Then when I heard the word a number of times last week at the annual Association for Psychological Science, the matter was decided, the deal was done. Emergence is a very popular topic right now, deservedly so, and that's what the "E" in CARVE now stands for.
I had been thinking about emergence because it describes well the criticism and impatience I have with much of what is being said by popularizers about neuroscience, including some of the people talking about the brain and its role in conflict resolution. Their approach to neuroscience is reductionist, and goes something like this: We know "A" about the brain and so this happens, and we know "B" about the brain and so that happens. Because of "A," people do this, and because of "B," people do that. If only it were that simple! And if only we knew as much about "A" and "B" as these people put forth with such certainty.
Emergence adds another layer of complication with which we must contend and wrestle: another layer, another twist, about which we may or may not learn as more about the brain is discovered. Using our example of "A" and "B", emergence simply means that "A" and "B" together may create "C" and that "C" may not be predictable or intended or consistent. It is not as simple as 2 + 3 = 5; more like 2 +3 = 7 today, and 4 tomorrow, and nothing on Wednesday.
Let's look at what a couple of the speakers at the APS conference had to say.