Brains On Purpose™

Not guilty! I'm only a neuro-person and my brain made me do it

Not too long ago, I heard a presentation on the the brain and conflict resolution in which the speaker said dysfunctional brains are the cause of evil and crime. As regular readers know, I certainly do not agree with this reductionist view of human beings. So I was delighted to read a new paper by Professor Steven K, Erickson titled "Blaming the Brain." (Download here.) Excerpt:

People are more than their brains. Legal and social traditions have long held people accountable for their behavior under the presumption that most behavior is intentional and the product of conscious decision making. ...

Yet emerging conceptions of personhood generated by cognitive neuroscience suggests something very different than this entrenched view. Instead of people, cognitive neuroscience posits brains as the exclusive agents of behavior and suggests brains are incapable of blame because of their mechanical and determined nature. Minds and brains are held synonymous – thoughts, desires, and behaviors are regarded as no more than the yield of fixed neuronal tissue. ...

...

But there are problems with the neuro-person model. Despite the claim by neuroscientists that the mind is accessible, measurable, and predictable, there are good reasons for skepticism on all of these fronts. Cognitive neuroscience, like all fields of science, utilizes assumptions to generate its conclusions. Chief among these is that the complexity of the mind can be understood by examining localized areas of the brain which are presumed indicative of how people think.

Note: My recent post about locationism.

If you are interested in the mind and the brain, what makes people do what they do, and self-responsibility, I urge you to read the whole paper. Although Erickson is looking particularly at neurolaw within the criminal justice system, this paper is an excellent read for all of us.

Here are two posts from idealawg about neurolaw:

• Neurolaw another branch of neuromythology? Free will? Free won't?
• Neurolaw: Leaving out a big piece of the puzzle

Warnings about brain scans, empathy, and oxytocin

With the mass popularization of neuroscience in many arenas, including conflict resolution, one hears much dumbing down of how the brain works. I read an excellent blog post today at Lucid Thoughts titled fMRI and "locationism": Something Old, Something New and wanted to point it out to you since it explains a factor in this dumbing down. Blogger Steve Genco calls it "locationism.'

Locationism is when one describes an activity in the brain as if we know exactly where that activity occurs, i.e., giving it a location. From Lucid Thoughts:

I haven’t picked on the fMRI folks for awhile, but was inspired today by a new post over at the excellent neuroscience-of-language blog Talking Brains entitled “Functional brain imaging, it’s not always where you think it is.”  And that reminded me that I also want to write something about an excellent article in Scientific American Mind from about a year ago entitled “Five Ways Brain Scans Mislead Us.”

I’m taking this opportunity for a “two-fer” because both these items draw attention to a central dogma of fMRI interpretation that is particularly prevalent in the popular media.  I call it

That fashionable and popular brain! Are neuromyths increasing in dispute resolution? Who creates them?

I am happy to see that neuroscience is being mentioned more frequently by many who are talking and teaching about dispute resolution. On the other hand, I am a little concerned about what is being said about the brain; I'm hearing some neuromyths and assertions that go beyond what the research has proven. Let us be careful not to introduce neuromyths into the dispute resolution arena. Once they get in, repeated and accepted, it will be very hard to weed them out.

What's a neuromyth? From Understanding the Brain: The Birth of a Learning Science:

The brain is fashionable. The media constantly draws in one way or another on the mysteries of this "black box." Such popularity is partly explained by the inherent interest of the subject for most people ("if you are talking about my brain, you're talking about me"), as well as by the richness of new discoveries by neuroscientific research that lend themselves to media coverage. Popular appeal can bring pitfalls. Over the past few years, there has been a growing number of misconceptions circulating about the brain, which have come to be labeled "neuromyths." They have some characteristics in common ... .

Most neuromyths ... share similar origins. They are almost always based on some element of sound science, which

Neuro-talk? Keep talking neuro-talk? Talk about things you'd like to know

In Seduction by neuroscience: Resisting the allure, I wrote about the problems with neuro-talk or using neuroscience incorrectly. That post was written nearly two years ago and I believe neuro-talk has since then greatly increased.

These days the brain is a hot topic and people will even believe otherwise implausible assertions and explanations if they are told that neuroscience proves what is being put forth as true. I hear and read some of the oddest statements about the brain and what it does and does not like. There is much New Age, pop neuroscience floating around. Beware. And be aware.

I was moved to write another neuro-talk warning when reading a post at Language Log. The post has a number of good links to aticles about neuro-talk and the misuse of neuroscience. One link goes to "Caveat Lector: The Presentation of Neuroscience Information in the Popular Media." [pdf] From the article:

[R]ecent research in cognitive psychology shows that people are often unduly swayed by neuroscience studies, ... . There is thus a danger that members of the public wiIl uncriticaIly accept neuroscience-based claims, or applications of neuroscience information to public questions and debates, without regard to their merits. Because of this danger, scientists can and should do more to monitor the ways in which these claims and applications are reported in the media.

I urge you to go to the Language Lab post and follow some of the links.

And I urge you to remember that there is so much we do not know about the brain. Question what people tell you. Be skeptical. Ask

Some hard questions about neurolaw: If you are interested in law and neuroscience, read this article

This blog takes the position that there is a difference between the mind and the brain. That point of view is probably obvious since I collaborate with one of the leading non-materialist neuroscientists Jeff Schwartz. (For more about non-materialist neuroscience, read his book The Mind and the Brain.) Because of my interest in the mind/brain question, I was intrigued with a new article I recommend to you.

I also found this article blog-worthy because I have been concerned about claims being made about what the brain can show us about legal matters such as liability, truth-telling, and criminal propensity. (See my posts here and here.) This new article entitled "Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience" looks at both the mind/brain and the use of neuroscience by the legal system. The abstract:

According to a wide variety of scholars, scientists, and policymakers, neuroscience promises to transform law. Many neurolegalists - those championing the power of neuroscience for law - proceed from problematic premises regarding the relationship of mind to brain. In this Article, we make the case that their accounts of the nature of mind are implausible and that their conclusions are overblown. Thus, their claims of the power of neuroscience for law cannot be sustained. We discuss a wide array of examples including lie detection, criminal-law doctrine, economic decision-making, moral decision-making, and jurisprudence.

Download the article here.

Here's an excerpt from the authors' take on the brain/mind question (footnotes removed):

Rather than arguing about where the mind is located (e.g., in the brain or elsewhere) we need to step back and contemplate whether this is the right question to ask. First, notice that the question of the mind’s location presupposes that the mind is a kind of “thing” or “substance” that is located “somewhere” (e.g., in the body). Why must this be so? Our answer is that it need not be, and is not. An alternative conception—the one that we contend is more plausible—of mind is as a diverse array of abilities exercised by a person. These abilities implicate a wide range of psychological categories including sensations, perceptions, cognition (i.e., knowledge, memory), cogitation (i.e., beliefs, thought, imagination, mental imagery), affectations (i.e., emotions, moods, appetites), and volition (i.e., intentions, voluntary action).

To be clear, we do not deny that a properly working brain is necessary for a person to engage in the diverse array of abilities that we collectively identify as mental life. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. But, while certain neural activity is necessary for a human being to

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.

Note (added August 17, 2008, 6:42 PM Mountain): Another article cautionary about fMRIs: "Picturing our thoughts" (Boston Globe).

Note (added October 5, 2008, 7:55 PM Mountain): Related post at Herd - the hidden truth about who we are: The Return of Neurononsense with a hat tip to Johnnie Moore's Weblog.

Image credit: letmehaveausername

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.

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.

Brain Overclaim Syndrome: Expecting too much from neuroscience —and the cure

Brain Overclaim Syndrome. I wish I had thought up that name to describe the tendency to exalt neuroscience to unwarranted heights. I did not, but I will be using it from now on. When I hear someone making claims about human behavior based on neurosience that leap beyond what we know through research or that are flimsy extrapolations, I will now say, "Why, that is BOS!" Sometimes, if the guesswork is particularly egregious, I may utter a second statement which is very similar but leaves out the "O".

Does BOS occur in the field of conflict resolution. Yes, although I have seen it much more frequently in the business arena where people are drawing shaky conclusions and engaging in large stretches about the brain and what it does in the workplace. Even more frequently, you can find wild and wispy assertions about the brain's behavior in the sales process. On the whole, those working at the nexus of conflict resolution and neuroscience are using caution and care. Let's be grateful for the integrity.

Click for more about Brain Overclaim Syndrome, its cure, and links to interviews and articles about neurolaw.

Image credit: nevermindjez and stretchynick

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):

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

Sign to a post on neurolaw

For those of you interested in the developing field of neurolaw, I have posted some cautionary words about neurolaw at idealawg.