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

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.

The Myth of Mars and Venus: A new book dispelling some entrenched myths

Gender differences can play a part in conflict—both the differences themselves, and the assumptions we  make and the myths we believe about the differences between men and women. Those assumptions and beliefs may be not only about parties to a dispute but about others involved, including lawyers and ourselves. Let's make sure we have good information about any differences.

"Rewire Your Brain to Systematize, Empathize" is an article in today's Boston Herald about "brain differences based on gender." On that topic, the author recommends two books: The Essential Difference: The Truth about the Male and Female Brain by Simon Baron-Cohen and The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine, MD. Before you head on over to Amazon, consider The Myth of Mars and Venus, a book coming out later this month. The author is not a fan of either book.

This soon-to-be-released book was written by Oxford professor Deborah Cameron. Beginning today, The Guardian is running three book extracts. Click to read the first: "What language barrier?"

In today's extract, Cameron writes about three sources of information on gender differences. First, are the self-help and pop psych books.

Countless self-help and popular psychology books have been written portraying men and women as alien beings, and conversation between them as a catalogue of misunderstandings. The most successful exponents of this formula, such as Deborah Tannen, author of You Just Don't Understand, and John Gray, author of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, have topped the bestseller lists on both sides of the Atlantic.

The next source are the pop science books . . .

with titles such as Brain Sex, Sex on the Brain, The Essential Difference, and Why Men Don't Iron. These

Anatomy of a telephone game applied to a neuroscience study

I am going to tell you a story because it is a good example of how easy it is to interpret, or extrapolate from, research in a direction a study does not support. Let's trace the steps of what happened in this case.

Research was conducted this year looking at the neuroscience of the repeated-name penalty. That's when one's reading speed slows down when reading a repeated name instead of a pronoun. For example, the second of the two following paragraphs (using pronouns instead of names) will be read more quickly.

Susan is really into animals. The other day Susan gave Betsey a pet hamster. Susan reminded Betsey that such hamsters are quite shy and need gentle handling.

Susan is really into animals. The other day she gave Betsey a pet hamster. She reminded Betsey that such hamsters are quite shy and need gentle handling.

Using functional MRI (fMRI), researchers looked at what the brain did when reading the repeated name versus a pronoun. The researchers saw a difference in how the brain processes the reading of each and wrote that the findings suggest that pronouns reduce interference and lessen needed brain processing.

Next chapter in this story: An article about the research entitled "Pronouns Aid Brain Function" appeared in both ScienceDaily and newswise.

Enter the blogosphere.

Roger Dooley blogged about the article and the study in Names Disrupt The Brain. He writes . . .

A new study by Dr. Amit Almor of the University of South Carolina used fMRI brain scans to show the different responses when a subject hears [emphasis added] a proper name or a pronoun referring to a previously named person.

Gerry Riskin then blogged about Dooley's post in Want competitive advantage? Use proper names! saying . . .

PROOF:  A new study by Dr. Amit Almor of the University of South Carolina used MRI brain scans to show the different responses when a subject hears [emphasis added] a proper name or a pronoun referring to a previously named person.

“The brain lit up with activity when proper names were used, including areas that are not associated with language,” Almor said. “We saw considerable activity in areas of the parietal lobe that involve spatial processing that was absent when pronouns were used.”

That lighting up of the brain when a name is used (read not heard) that Riskin cites was described in the article as not an enhancement but a disruption!

Pronouns, while faulty for their potential ambiguity, don’t cause the same disruptions in the brain that proper names do when used in the right context. In fact, they allow the brain to move easily from one thought or sentence to another. This seamless transition allows a person to digest more fully the meaning or intent of the thought being conveyed without the neural circuitry interference that proper names cause, said Almor.

So we went from reading the name to hearing it and from the name being a disruption to a benefit.

Good brain, bad brain? Bring it all to the negotiation table

We are hearing much lately about the wise parts of the brain as well as the unruly. Truth be told this division into camps in the cranium is simplistic. David Brooks described part of the simplistic approach in his New York Times column "The Vulcan Utopia" (subscription required) in which he reviews Al Gore's book The Assault on Reason. Brooks wrote . . .

Gore seems to have come up with a theory that the upper, logical mind sits on top of, and should master, the primitive and more emotional mind below. He thinks this can be done through a technical process that minimizes information flow to the lower brain and maximizes information flow to the higher brain.

The reality, of course, is that there is no neat distinction between the "higher" and "lower" parts of the brain. There are no neat distinctions between the "rational" mind and the "visceral" body. The mind is a much more complex network of feedback loops  . . .  .

Without emotions like fear, the "logical" mind can't reach conclusions. On the other hand, many of the most vicious, genocidal acts are committed by people who are emotionally numb, not passionately out of control.

Anger is another emotion which can be very useful in the reaching of conclusions and yet anger is often maligned. Although certainly not in every instance, anger can improve our ability to make rational decisions and that often fiery emotion can assist in the rational evaluation of another person's position. Conflict precipitating anger can sometimes facilitate resolution.

In "Thinking straight while seeing red: The influence of anger on information processing," [available at no charge for a limited time] researchers discussed the impact of anger on decision-making and thinking. The article was summarized by Medical News Today. An excerpt from the summary  . . .

Anger is that powerful internal force that blows out the light of reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Anger is appropriately blamed for flawed thinking since it tends to alter perception of risk, increase prejudice, and trigger aggression. But is anger always destructive? Three recent experiments published in the latest issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, an official publication of The Society for Personality and Social Psychology suggest that it is not. Anger can actually prompt more careful and rational analysis of another person's reasoning.

Anger is sometimes destructive and sometimes helpful; its value is variable. Wouldn't it be easier to have a list of the emotions and brain parts that are invited to the negotiation? Yes.

Although it would make life (and conflict resolution) easier if we could draw simple conclusions about the brain's anatomy and about individual emotions, doing so is at best puerile and at worst dangerous. One of many reasons that an oversimplified, single-component focus is misleading is that the  brain part or the emotion does not exist in isolation. We can only get so far by studying the tuba if want to understand the symphony.

May we learn about conflict resolution by having a better understanding of the brain? Absolutely! Neuroscience holds many, many gems. But one of our watchwords will be restraint. We don't want to contribute to the growing neuro-fiddle-faddle.

 

Seduction by neuroscience: Resisting the allure

At Professor Adam Kolber's Neuroethics & Law Blog, I learned of a new article now in press at the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. Access "The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations" here at the Web site of lead author Deena Skolnick Weisberg. Kolber summarizes the article:

In short, Skolnick's study suggests that people are much more willing to buy bad scientific explanations of phenomenon if they contain some sort of neuroscience reference - such as a comment that the phenomenon is associated with activity in a certain part of the brain - even if that reference is irrelevant to the logic of the argument being made.  Her work provides a little confirmatory data for some long-held suspicions about the power of neuro-talk to overwhelm good critical thinking.

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