Brains On Purpose™

What DON'T we know about the brain? Vast amounts, whole oceans and skies worth

Every so often something comes in one of my Google alerts about how much we do not know about the brain. Those articles and posts make me smile as they are excellent reminders to stay away from brain statements, schemes, and stories that are overreaching or even fantasy extrapolations.

No matter how many of these pieces appear that describe our paucity of knowledge, we still see many more articles purporting to tell us how our brains behave and often how to use that information to change other people or ourselves.

Of course, what we know so far about the brain can be very helpful in changing and creating habits, and in communicating with others. But we don't know as much as many would have you believe. I remind myself frequently to be discerning when reading and hearing about the brain, investigate the sources, follow and appreciate experts I trust.

Why? I don't think I would be exaggerating to say more than half of what is in the popular media is partially, if not completely, inaccurate. The brain is trendy right now, a hot topic, and neuro-anything seems to attract people. Ultimately the reason I grow more skeptical over the years is an issue of integrity; don't we all need to be responsible about what we tell others—on any topic?

Here's an except from a "Clear up this fuzzy thinking on brain scans" (Nature), a Google-alert treat that arrived in my inbox today.

Hardly a week goes by without the media showcasing beautiful three-dimensional images of the brain in action, which supposedly explain how and why humans do the things we do. Most recently, people have pretended that they can use neuroimaging alone to identify paedophiles or prove that we fall in love with mobile phones.

The limits of the technology, together with our incomplete picture of how the brain functions, make it hard to take these claims seriously. But, regardless of the doubts expressed by many neuroscientists, the appeal of brain images, and the illusion they offer of understanding and explaining our daily behaviour, continues to grow.

Click to read the rest. A related post: Virtuous Tweeting: Do you really, really, really want to send that "science" Tweet?

Interpersonal neurobiology: Great slate of speakers next month at UCLA

If I were going to be near southern California in March, I would definitely consider attending this conference. The lineup of speakers is excellent; it includes Dan Siegel, Iain McGilchrist, Marion Solomon, Diane Ackerman, and John Gottman.

From the brochure for "Toward a New Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships" to be held March 9-11, 2012:

Discover how relationships shape the brain... And how the brain shapes relationships.

The Annual Attachment / Interpersonal Neurobiology Conference explores clinical implications of recent interpersonal neurobiological models, including brain/mind/body systems, and newer body-based trauma models that focus on the enduring impact of stress on the central and autonomic nervous systems. The goal is to integrate neuroscience, attachment research, and developmental studies to expand empirical ways to cultivate health and healing in our lives. We will look at how this impacts communications in relationships, including patient-therapist and couples interactions.

Those attending will hear perspectives on new body-based trauma models. The discussion provides a framework for understanding the chronic nature of trauma-related behaviors and how they affect interpersonal communications.

A backlash against the brain?

Excerpt from "Neurons v Free Will" (The Economist):

There are now hopeful signs of what might be called a backlash against the brain. Hardly anybody doubts that the grey matter in our skulls underpins our thoughts and feelings, in the sense that a working brain is required for our mental life. This is not a new, or even a modern, idea: Hippocrates proclaimed as much in the fifth century BC. But there is a growing realisation among some neuroscientists that looking at flickers of activity inside our heads can be a misleading way to see how our minds work. This is because many of the distinctively human things that people do take place over time and outside their craniums. Perhaps the brain is the wrong place to look if you want to find free will. This is a theme of recent books by Michael Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and Raymond Tallis, a retired British doctor and neuroscientist. As Dr Tallis puts it in his “Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity”, trying to find human life in the brain is like trying to hear the rustle of a forest by listening to a seed.

Click to read the rest.

 

One-minute lessons on changing your brain: Reminders of why attention choreography is so important

How do you change your brain? Pay attention to what you're paying attention to; watch your mental flashlight. How do you help others to change their brains (e.g., parties to a dispute, attendees at a presentation)? Facilitate their attention, be an attention choreographer, an attention conductor.

Nothing new. We've looked at this critical role of attention in neuroplasticity many times before here on this blog. However, it's nice to have quick (under 60 seconds) and smart reminders of the role of attention and the fact that we are never too old to change our brains. And that's what Anette Prehn has created . . .

• Click to watch her video on self-directed neuroplasticity
• Click to watch her video on teaching old dogs new tricks

Note: Prehn's telecourse on reframing starts tomorrow, February 15. And to see more videos as she posts them, watch this space on YouTube.

Virtuous Tweeting: Do you really, really, really want to send that "science" Tweet?

Why do people pass on items before scrutinizing them? Some members of my Tweeter gang regularly Tweet press releases from such sources as Science Daily as if they were news. Then these Tweets are reTweeted and the peeping and chirping and crowing of Tweety birds grows louder and louder.

In a post from Arstechnica, the practice of treating such aggregators as PhysOrg and Science Daily as news was criticized:

[I]n a large number of contexts, these two sites are treated as credible sources of scientific information. Items posted there make frequent appearances on social news sites, and a number of people I've talked to have been shocked to discover that the majority of the sites' content is nothing more than rebranded press releases.

Ultimately, the job of editing and of peer review is to help ensure that only scientifically valid data and ideas end up in the literature. The job of the press should be to ensure that the public only receives reports of equal quality (or better, since the press can act as an additional layer of filtering). Unfortunately, with the rise of the press release, and of aggregators that disguise press releases as news content, the public is not being well served in this regard.

I have not forgotten a Tweet from Todd Stark last month in which he responded to this problem and wrote:

Aggregator problem reinforces the need to understand and filter before passing on. A new virtue for the 21st century!

A new virtue. I like that suggestion. Wouldn't it be nice if people did some digging prior to Tweeting? Even chickens don't eat

Quick flick of brain anatomy and functions

Click to watch "Brain Anatomy and Functions" from Nucleus Inc. medical animations. (You may enjoy watching some of the other animations available at the Nucleus Inc. link, too.)

H/T: Inside the Brain.

Online course on the neuroscience of reframing & how to improve your reframing skills

Anette Prehn, author of Play Your Brain : Adopt a Musical Mindset and Change your Life and Career, a book I often recommend, is offering a class through udemy on reframing. It begins on February 15, and I think it will be worth your time. A description of "The Neuroscience of Reframing & How to Do It" from the udemy Web site:

Reframing ought to be in the water we drink, scientists say. Reframing is the ability to change your perspective deliberately. But why is it praised like that? What happens in the brain when you reframe? What are the inner and outer effects? And how do you do it? You are invited to share your own, most powerful reframings with the group - and gain lots of inspiration through similar best-practice reframings from other participants.

This course is targeted for managers and executives which will show in the examples given and the questions asked. However, anyone is free to join so that as many as possible may harvest the benefits of reframing.

Since many conflict professionals use reframing, this class should be an excellent resource for them, too. In fact, I am not sure I can think of anyone who works with people who would not benefit from a reframing-skills tuneup and accelerator.

Click to enroll.

Past posts about Prehn:

• Excellent book PLAY YOUR BRAIN now easier for those of us in the US to buy
• One of the best methods of emotion regulation: Teach your kids young to reframe

Good review of the tome MASTER AND HIS EMISSARY, an antidote to left-brain, right-brain mythology

If you go to your local bookstore, you'll see that a lot of junk science about the left and right hemispheres of the brain is still being published. That's why I was so glad to learn a bit over a year ago about a terrific book that gets the science right.

I have blogged more than once about this book titled The Master and His Emissary (links to those posts below), and have recommend it many, many, many times. A new review of the book has just been published in Los Angeles Review of Books and I wanted to make sure you saw it if you have any interest in brain hemispheres.

From "Oppositional Thinking: On reconciling the two hemispheres of the brain":

...In the 1970s and 1980s, the “split brain” became a hot topic in neuroscience, and soon popular wisdom produced a flood of books explaining how the left brain was a “scientist” and the right an “artist.”

Much insight into human psychology can be gleaned from these popular accounts, but “hard” science soon recognized that this simple dichotomy could not accommodate the wealth of data that ongoing research into hemispheric function produced. And as no “real” scientist wants to be associated with popular misconceptions — for fear of peer disapproval — the fact that ongoing research revealed no appreciable functional differences between the hemispheres — they both seemed to “do” the same things, after all — made it justifiable for neuroscientists to put the split-brain question on the back burner, where it has pretty much stayed. Until now.

Links to previous posts on the book:

• Are you involved in half-brained mediations? Let's promote full-brained conflict resolution
• Review of The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World
• About the vast left-brain conspiracy and those driven to ecstasy by all things neuro
• The brain and culture: "The mind's great conflict spills over onto the world stage"

Valentine's Day news: Love is more than just chemicals in the brain--P.S. So is conflict

Understanding love by taking a look at the brain is a bit like understanding a car's driver by looking under the hood of the car he's driving. Such an attempt at comprehending love would be ultimately futile. It's not cognizant of the human spirit. Not wise. Not accurate.

Unfortunately some conflict professionals are now reducing conflict to the brain, too. They say something like, "The brain does 'A' so you should counter with move 'B'." Conflict and love are not that simple; we are more than the organ in our skull. They are not like chess games played on the board of the brain.

I knew when I saw a deeply reductionist notion of love titled "the brain in love" (Delancyplace.com) that it would not sit well with my favorite non-reductionist neuroscientist Jeffrey Schwartz. Smiling to myself, I sent the over-the-top-materialist post to him. Here's what Jeff wrote:

Now if hearing all this makes you nauseous, that's related to activity in a small area of you brain called the area postrema.  Interestingly, drugs that block dopamine will tend to decrease the nausea. And if you're left with a strong sense of "hey, there's got to be a LOT more to love than this," CONGRATS!  You're part of the hopefully not-too-rapidly-diminishing remnant of sane people who realize YOU ARE NOT YOUR BRAIN.

To learn more about the difference between the mind and the brain and how we are so much more than our brain, read one of the books Jeff has written: You Are Not Your Brain or The Mind and the Brain. If you are tempted to believe that your romance is governed by your oxytocin, better read one of these books quickly, before February 14.

Love is more than just an emotion resulting from some chemicals your brain. To think love is brought to us by chemicals removes not only the romance but the poetry and the humanity. Let's make February 14th a day of deep appreciation, devotion, and affection, not of a bromidic and limited inner neuro-pharmacy.

Note (added February 8, 2012): Another person who thinks love arises from the brain: "Author Horstman draws on neuroscience to explore love" (Marin Independent Journal). Excerpt:

"Everything happens in the brain. It's your biggest and strongest sex and love organ," says [Judith] Horstman.

Wah, wah, wah: Excellent example of why people don't listen, even if you have good information

The blog post is titled "Meet Me Halfway" (Scientific American) and its author writes about one kind of two-way communication: The speaker gives information and the listener, well, listens. The blogger then gives us some interesting neuroscience-related information about the way the brains of speakers and listeners can synchronize.  And then she writes about scientists having much good information for the public—if the public would only listen!

But the vast majority of the populace still cheerfully go about their daily lives without giving science (or scientists) a second thought — when they’re not actively hostile to it. We’re simply not reaching them. To borrow a line from Cool Hand Luke: “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”

The missing ingredient from her blog post is benefits. Why would a member of the populace want to listen? What would they gain by paying attention to a scientist? Of course, this is basic sales theory: I won't listen to you unless and until you show me what's in it for me to pay attention.

The blogger seems to leave out that powerful and essential ingredient of benefits.

Which is why I’m speaking directly to the listeners out there now who rarely give science a second thought and/or assume they could never have a meaningful connection with a scientist: you need to meet scientists halfway. It’s not enough to sit back and wait for them to impress or entertain you before you’ll deign to give science a smidgen of your attention — not if you want to truly grok what science is all about.

I am reminded of a salesperson who continues to stress the features of his or her product while ignoring what the product