Brains On Purpose™

Cognitive paparazzi and the backlash against the bright lights of brain images

What do we really know about the brain? Not as much as many in the media would have us believe. I have blogged before about using caution when applying neuroscience to conflict resolution (or to anything), including a few words about the Brain Overclaim Syndrome. (Scroll here for cautionary posts.) Now caution is issuing forth from many tongues and pens.

Charles Barber's recent article "The Brain: A Mindless Obsession?" (The Wilson Quarterly) includes a look at what brain imaging can tell us, or more specifically, what it cannot.

...Brain images are still far cruder than one would think after reading the sensational revelations attributed to them in the science pages of newspapers and magazines. And it must be remembered that these are secondary images of blood flow and glucose in the brain, and not of brain tissue itself. ... While there are some correlations between brain activity in certain regions and external, observable behavior, it is very hard to gauge what the pictures really mean. How does the flow of blood in parts of the brain correspond to feelings, moods, opinions, emotions, imagination?...

The state of the art right now is that we can read brains—to some very crude extent—but we can’t even begin to read minds. Wall Street Journal science writer Sharon Begley has coined the term “cognitive paparazzi” to describe those who claim they can. “What does neuroscience know about how the brain makes decisions? Basically nothing,” says Michael Gazzaniga, director of the SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Vaughan Bell in his The fMRI smackdown cometh post at Mind Hacks sees a marked increase in "soul searching over the shortcomings of fMRI brain scanning." He writes:

Numerous articles in hard hitting publications have questioned some common assumptions behind the technology, suggesting a backlash against the bright lights of brain scanning is in full swing.

In his post, he links to many of those articles. I urge you to read his post in which he summarizes the "backlash."

The brain is more fluid and changing then we are left to believe by much of what we read. Barber says, "[I]f you were to do the same scans of the same activity a year later, you might get quite different results." And the interpretation of brain scans is of course changing, too; Bell says, "[O]ur understanding of what brain scanning data tells us evolves over time. A study conducted ten years ago might mean something different now."

As I have asked before, does this mean neuroscience holds little or nothing for the conflict resolution professional? No, not at all. But likely what we are learning from brain scans may be, at best, clues. The new focus on caution, the "backlash," is good. Bell posts:

It's important that these sorts of issues come to light, because it hopefully heralds a time of increased caution in our interpretation of brain scans - and that goes for scientists, the media and the general public.

And people involved in dispute resolution.

Note (added June 27, 2008, 7:42 AM Mountain): More on the impreciseness of brain scanning in Science, Criticism, fMRI at The Frontal Cortex. Blogger Jonah Lehrer quotes Nikos Logothetis:

The limitations of fMRI are not related to physics or poor engineering, and are unlikely to be resolved by increasing the sophistication and power of the scanners; they are instead due to the circuitry and functional organization of the brain, as well as to inappropriate experimental protocols that ignore this organization.

The quote is from "What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI."

Note (added June 27, 2008, 7:45 PM Mountain): More analysis at Pure Pedantry in this post: Must Read Paper on fMRI -and- The Worst fMRI Science Journalism Ever.

Image credit: letmehaveausername

Values and Empathy across Social Barriers: A Neurocognitive Approach to Fairness

A conference with that title will be held later this year. From the New York Academy of Sciences Web site:

What makes suicide bombers capable of sacrificing themselves for a belief? Why do members of one race believe they are superior to another? How do subliminal messages affect the outcome of political polling? Using the tools of neuroscience and social science, researchers have learned a great deal about the brain's role in human behavior and interactions. This November, international scientific leaders and young investigators will convene for the first Barcelona Social Brain Conference, an exciting two-day event featuring talks, poster presentations, and a public lecture on the interdisciplinary field of social neuroscience. Through a neuroscientific lens, participants will examine the human qualities of empathy, sacred values, and cooperation, and focus on the ways in which what they learn can be used to understand human conflicts.

The program includes some excellent presenters, including Kevin Ochsner, Elizabeth Phelps, and Susan Fiske.

Take a closer look at what the media report: Recent studies about fairness and empathy

Reading about research in the media sometimes can be misleading. Here are two recent examples. First, several articles and blog posts have covered "The Sunny Side of Fairness," research out of UCLA by Golnaz Tabibnia, Ajay B. Satpute, and Matthew D. Lieberman.

An article about the study at physorg.com is titled "Are humans hardwired for fairness?" Professor Greg Downey of Neuroanthropology posted at Craving money, chocolate and… justice his concern about interpreting the research as saying fairness is hardwired.

I still reject the notion that this necessarily proves that we are ‘hard-wired to treat fairness as a reward [quoting Dr. Lieberman in a UCLA press release].’  I don’t think that the research shows anything about ‘hard-wiring’, but rather about the ‘wiring’ of university students. No developmental or cross-cultural data has been discussed that might go to the issue of whether this ‘wiring’ is ‘hard’ or ’soft,’ and I strongly suspect that it’s not ‘hard’ in the sense that this usually means, as we have plenty of cross-cultural evidence suggesting not every society thinks money should be divided equally, or even that money is terribly valuable.

The notion of ‘hard-wiring’ still seems to me to be one of the most problematic pieces of baggage that gets drug out in much of the brain imaging research, usually without data that would actually support it. The research is plenty interesting without the assumption of ‘hard-wiring’, . . .

I am looking forward to reading the study. Here you will find links to the study and to several articles about it.

The second example: At idealawg, I posted Better to lead with thinking rather than feeling in negotiations? Maybe if you are an MBA student in a negotiations course. I question the conclusions drawn from the research both in the media—and by the study itself.

Bottom line: Whenever possible, read the actual studies in addition to what the media reports.

Dan Rather reports on neuroplasticity

You may watch online a Dan Rather report on how our brains change throughout life. This 52 minutes on neuroplasticity includes segments on memory, meditation, stroke, and brain fitness.

Hat tip to Dr. Ginger Campbell. Click for her overview of this "Mind Science" program on neuroplasticity.

Has brain science reached a tipping point? Do mediators and lawyers "need to incorporate neuroscience into their practice"?

Ed Batista, Leadership Coach at Stanford's Graduate School of Business, posted today about the use of neuroscience in coaching, leadership and learning. His thoughtful post includes due concern about "neuro-hype" and the limitations of the science, topics on which I have posted before (posts here). Batista's discussion about limitations includes the link to a very good article from Haaretz.com titled "Of two minds". From the article:

[M]any scientists are taking issue with the rising dominance of brain sciences within the study of the human mind and human behavior. Psychologists, philosophers and even a large number of brain researchers maintain that many of the studies that are attracting public interest are scientifically untenable, rely on as-yet-unproven technologies, or simply show the obvious after appalling financial investments. Others argue that the studies are unethical and subject to commercial manipulation.

Nevertheless, the science does have some good information and need not be ignored. Batista says:

[W]e're clearly at a point where humanistic professionals--executive coaches, OD consultants, experiential educators--need to incorporate neuroscience into their practices.

I add mediators and lawyers to that list of professionals who "need to incorporate neuroscience into their practices." Why? For the many reasons I have blogged about here and about which I will continue to write.

About that possible tipping point: In the general public, the interest in neuroscience seems to be growing. These days, I frequently receive e-mails from people saying they are learning about the science and describe themselves with such adjectives as "fascinated" or immersed." Another example: our program at the Smithsonian enjoyed an unusually high registration. A time for excitement—and a time for even more caution and critical thought. What is your thinking? Is the interest growing?

Note: I added the image above from the new service picapp.com but I am not sure I did it correctly. What is that little person peeking over the edge? Do any of you know how to use the service? They have some terrific images and I would like to master its use. Thanks.

Is a good leader a good conflict facilitator? Is a good conflict facilitator a good leader?

This month's Fast Company includes an article about four traits of leadership: curiosity, charisma, knowledge of neuroscience, and adaptability. Often these four traits are also embodied by someone skilled in resolving disputes.

James Kuczmarski, author of the article "The Journal-ist: In the Lead," reviewed four recent academic journals to create the quartet.

In "The Role of Curiosity in Global Managers’ Decision-Making" from The Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, he read of the leadership value of curiosity. Curiosity is also important for professionals in conflict resolution. They wonder what's really going on here?

Charisma is discussed in an article published in Journal of Applied Psychology. Kuczmarski writes:

[I]t's not just charisma that matters--it's also the perception of charisma. To boost perceptions, you have to get your audience highly aroused. (Mind out of the gutter: To psychologists, arousal means the level of audience interest and engagement.) High arousal leads to "an amplification of ... charismatic appeal." That is, you'll seem even more charismatic than you already are and better able to sustain others' excitement . . .  .

Interest and engagement—even excitement—boost conflict resolution.

"The Neuroscience of Leadership" was just reprinted in Reclaiming Children and Youth. (I have blogged about that neuroscience article in the past at idealawg.) Because of the  keys to human behavior one gains from knowledge of neuroscience, a threshold purpose of Brains on Purpose™ is detailing the many benefits of brain knowledge for effective dispute resolution.

Finally, Kuczmarski writes about the merits of adaptability described

A key to cross-cultural conflict resolution: Around the world in almost 80 (0,000,000) brains

Brains vary from culture to culture—a lot!

Vickie Pynchon at her Settle It Now Blog is posting about the event she is attending: Mediators Beyond Borders Founding Congress. Yesterday in How to Make Your Opponent Do What You Want Him to Do: Part I she posted a list created by Ken Cloke of 12 Ways Systems Resist Change. In reading it, I was reminded of how much cultures vary. This list would apply in some cultures; in many other cultures it would be a mismatch.

Neurocience research is showing us that the brains of people in different cultures are not the same. Because brains differ from culture to culture, so will resistance to change. Also varying will be how conflict is viewed—and resolved. Here are just a couple of examples of the research on brains and culture.

Recently scientists in Singapore and Illinois compared how the brains of East Asians and of Westerners reacted to visual stimuli. They found that the older East Asian's brains responded differently from the brains of the older Westerners. In an article "Culture sculpts neural response to visual stimuli, new research indicates" principal investigator Dr. Denise Park is quoted as saying:

These are the first studies to show that culture is sculpting the brain.

In another study, researchers looked at how native English speakers and native Chinese speakers did arithmetic. From an Associated Press article about the research:

Simple arithmetic was easily done by both groups, but they used different parts of the brain . . .  .

[Both brain/culture studies are linked to at the end of this post.]

Recognizing the advantages of different ways of seeing the world

For global understanding, one of the many exciting results of this kind of research is described later in the AP article:

Another blog focusing on neuroscience and conflict resolution: Welcoming Nancy Hudgins to the blogosphere

Nancy Hudgin's new blog is Civil Negotiation and Mediation. From her debut post:

Welcome to the inaugural post of Civil Negotiation and Mediation!
I chose this name for three reasons.
I will be discussing negotiation strategies in civil litigation.
I will be making a pitch for putting the “civil” back into civil litigation.
I will be reflecting on how civility is a hallmark of mediation and should be an aspiration of litigation.
I hope to make accessible the research from social science, psychology, and neuroscience on negotiation and mediation.
Along the way, we’ll have some fun.

I see that both Nancy Hudgin and I have taken the same mediation training: Gary Friedman's at the Center for Mediation in Law. No mediation training I have taken has ever come close to being as valuable as that which I received from Gary Friedman and Jack Himmelstein. They are the best. I am happy to meet in the blogopshere another Center trainee.

Welcome to you, Nancy. Maybe we can "have some fun" together!

Wise, insightful words on the perils of popularizing neuroscience

We have blogged about neuro-talk in the past. Neuro-talk is what we call use of the science to create misleading brain myths or make ungrounded leaps from the research to unjustifiable conclusions. From past post Seduction by neuroscience: Resisting the allure:

Neuro-talk is popular these days. You can read about neuro-this and neuro-that. Much extrapolation is being done from the findings of neuroscience; often the extrapolation is not warranted or accurate. We are aware of the temptation to make leaps and of the allure of the science. Here at BonP, accuracy as we apply neuroscience to conflict resolution will be of highest priority. When we first began writing articles together, Jeff and I discussed the importance, when talking about the mind and the brain, of not straying into the field of conjecture — unless any guess we make is clearly tagged as just that: a guess.

Toward the end of warning people about over- and mis-statements about what neuroscience has shown, I am recommending The Perils of Popularising Science, a post by Jason Zevin, a cognitive neuroscientist. Zevin writes at More Intelligent Life:

[M]ost of what is known is more complicated than I'm able to understand--much less explain to a general audience. And at least some of what I know about any topic in neuroscience is liable to have been discredited by a recent article in Science or Nature. This makes me cautious whenever anyone turns to me for an authoritative opinion on anything regarding the brain.

This is why it is always so disorienting to talk to people who have just read or are reading anything by Steven Pinker (such as his recent piece "The Moral Instinct" in the New York Times Magazine). Often, these people know all kinds of amazing things--including things I'm pretty sure aren't true.  . . .   The problem is that our field is one with many open questions, many confusing and apparently mutually exclusive data points, not to mention a dizzying array of theoretical perspectives to consider.

As scientists, we learn to live with the fact that much of our work is highly subjective. There is actually very little that any two people who call themselves "cognitive neuroscientists" are guaranteed to agree on. Mostly we make progress by choosing the side of an argument that seems most plausible given our pre-theoretical commitments, and trying to provide data that would convince someone starting from the other side.

Remember Zevin's cautionary words next time you read a conclusion about what neuroscience tells us about the behavior of human beings.

Note (added January 25, 2008, 7:19 PM Mountain): On a related note, here's an excerpt from a review of The Body Has a Mind of Its Own at The Quarterly Conversation:

There's plenty of good science in The Body Has a Mind of Its Own, but as the authors acknowledge, "certain details and caveats that a specialist would consider vital have been condensed, glossed over, or shoehorned into metaphors."

. . .

How are we, as readers, to know when the science ends and the guessing begins?

Certainly not by looking up the Blakeslee's sources: they don't cite them. Sure, they quote neuroscientists, psychologists, and doctors in the text, but they don't ever explain when a quotation is backed by peer-reviewed research and when it's merely a hunch.

Note (added February 7, 2008, 1:00 PM Mountain): From "Colin Blakemore: An organ so complex we may never fully understand it" (The Independent):

Zen neuroscience program in Santa Fe - January, 2008

Some of you may find this announcement on Joan Halifax's blog of interest. Below is an excerpt of the post about the Zen Brain, Selfless Insight Retreat being held January 16-20, 2008.

Popular and scientific interest in the relationships between Buddhism and neuroscience has dramatically increased, accompanied by the publication of both theoretical proposals and new laboratory investigations relating Buddhist practice to the brain. In this important retreat/seminar, Joan Halifax Roshi and four renowned scientists who have contributed to this growing field of research, and are each long-term Zazen practitioners, will interactively share with participants their perspectives on what has specifically been learned about Zen practice and the brain, how this research is relevant for practice, and how experienced practitioners can help sharpen the research questions being asked. During the retreat, discussion will be integrated with Zazen practice throughout each day.
 
Clinical neurologist and neuroscientist James Austin, M.D. will provide an overview of  brain structure and physiology with high theoretical relevance to understanding many of the phenomena of Zen practice. His books, Zen and the Brain, and Zen-Brain Reflections, have been an extraordinarily rich source of hypotheses for neuroscientists who study long-term meditators. Dr. Austin will also provide retreat participants with a new speculative neuroscientific account of “what may have happened 2500 years ago under the Bodhi tree,” as well

The seminar on the neuroscience of conflict resolution: Attend on your computer

I was just talking with my client at Portland State University. She tells me this Friday's six-hour-long seminar will be streamed and available for viewing for a few days after the program. She kindly gave me permission to offer my colleagues and friends who watch by computer the human services discount registration rate.

To sign up, call 1-800-547-8887. Hit O and dial extension 4832. Tell them you are registering for Neuroscience of Conflict Resolution at the human services discount. She recommended registering by phone instead of online as the online is glitchy.

Click for more information about the seminar on neuroscience of conflict resolution.

Neuroscience, negotiation, conflict resolution: All free courses from MIT

MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW) has posted lecture notes and course materials for many of their classes. What a resource! Click for the courses available in Brain and Cognitive Sciences. Sloan School of Management offers many courses, including Game Theory for Managers and Competitive Decision-Making and Negotiation. Doing a search on "mediation" brings up 159 hits for you to explore. A search on "conflict resolution" yields 291 hits. Enjoy mining for mind gold and learning from what you find. Thanks, MIT.

Hat tip to VeraSage.