Brains On Purpose™

Seven keys to change are also seven elements of conflict resolution—And seven ingredients in brain changing

Are there essential precursors to change? Professor Fred Hanna believes so. His book Therapy With Difficult Clients: Using the Precursors Model to Awaken Change lays out seven precursors, and gives suggestions on how to enhance them. As you can tell from the book title, Dr. Hanna's audience is therapists. Although mediation is not therapy, knowledge of these seven can help conflict professionals to assess missing ingredients when movement towards resolution seems jammed, dammed, or barred.

Here are the seven:

1. A sense of necessity for change
2. A willingness or readiness to experience anxiety or difficulty
3. Awareness of the problem
4. Confronting the problem (...culmination of awareness but is not the same)
5. Effort or will toward change
6. Hope for change
7. Social support for change

Click to read "Overcoming Resistance in Difficult Clients: Techniques and Precursors of Change" for definitions of each of the seven. As you will see, each of them is a precursor to self-directed neuroplasticity: changing the pathways in your brain to make changes in your relationship, your behavior, your perspective, your conflict.

As I read and reread the list, and pondered each item, I liked the list more and more. Partly because it is a good inventory for the parties to conflict, but more because these are essential for mediators, too. Do you agree that mediators need to base their process, regardless of the model they use, on these states and traits in themselves?

What would you add to the list? Would you eliminate any of the elements?

6 benefits of mindfulness which can support the resolution of conflict

If parties to a conflict were adept at understanding and practicing these states and traits, would the likelihood of mutually satisfactory resolution increase?

(1) [I]ntention and motivation; (2) attention regulation; (3) emotion regulation; (4) memory extinction and reconsolidation; (5) prosociality; (6) non-attachment and de-centering.

In the model of mediation I use, of course the presence of those 6 would facilitate resolution. That list was taken from a new article titled "Self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-transcendence (S-ART): a framework for understanding the neurobiological mechanisms of mindfulness" (Frontiers in Human Neuroscience). In the article, the authors define the listed six states and traits, and explain how they are promoted by mindfulness.

I recommend this article both to those of us who already understand the way mindfulness of both the mediator and the parties can smooth the way to resolution, as well as to those diehards who still protest that mindfulness is not an important component of the way mediation is defined and practiced in the 21st century.

Note: Click to read the press release from Brigham and Women's Hospital issued about this article: More than Good Vibes: Researchers Propose the Science Behind Mindfulness. The release provides a quick overview.

Can a person be addicted to indignation? Self-righteousness? If so, can you mediate with the addict?

One of the books I recently read that got me thinking and thinking (and thinking) is Pathological Altruism. Two chapters particularly grabbed my attention and thought: "Self-Addiction and Self-Righteousness" by David Brin, and "Pathological Certitude" by Robert A. Burton*. As I watch Twitter, Facebook, and the media, I have, since reading these chapters, thought everyday about the good feelings associated with certitude.

Can we unswervingly hold to our point of view not so much because of the truth of our position but because we are addicted to the feeling of indignation or self-righteousness? Brin thinks that kind of addiction is possible.

I wonder: Is it possible to mediate when addiction to indignation is present in one or more of the parties?

What does Brin mean by addiction to indignation or self-righteousness? From the introduction to his chapter:

• If a mental state causes pleasurable reinforcement, there will be a tendency to return to it. Meditation, adoration, gambling, rage, and indignation might all, at times, be "mental addictions."
• Self-righteousness and indignation may sometimes be as much about chemical need as valid concerns about unfair actions. Among other outcomes, this may cause "pathologically altruistic" behavior.

Now, let me ask a couple of questions . . .

As you look back, can you think of just one or two parties to disputes in which you have been involved that seemed to crave indignation? Have you ever been indignant at least partly because it felt so good? Perhaps we all have succumbed to that feeling? Have you ever connected the notion of addiction with indignation?

Brin elaborates at his Web site in an article which is very similar to his chapter in Pathological Altruism:

 

Are you sure you know what you're communicating? With which beak do you speak and which ear do you hear?

According to the four-ears model of communication, when we talk we transmit four messages and, when we listen, we can hear with four different ears (thus, of course, why the model is called four-ears). I believe the number of ears and messages are more than four, but this model nevertheless can be very helpful in improving understanding.

(Click the image above to enlarge the four-ears diagram.)

The model was developed by Friedemann Schulz von Thun, who was influenced by the work of Paul Watzlawick in its creation. Schulz von Thun believed that the four messages of any communication are:

• Content (What are the facts and data I'm stating)
• Self-disclosure (What i'm revealing about myself)
• Appeal (What I'm seeking from the other person)
• Relationship (How I relate to, think about, and regard the other person)

Because there are four kinds of ears with which we can listen, and four beaks (that's what Schulz von Thun called the output part of the communication) with which we can transmit, the potential for miscommunication can be very high. In fact, if you were only to consider the single channels, any communication has 16 different combinations! My statement of a fact can be heard by any of your four ears, as can my communication of self-disclosure, appeal, and relationship.

Here's an example from Wikipedia which I have edited a bit for clarity:

The classic example of Schulz von Thun is the front-seat passenger who tells the driver: "You, the traffic lights are green". The driver will understand something different according to the ear with which he hears. With the content ear, he will understand the "fact" that the traffic lights are green. He could also understand it as "Come on, drive!" command, the appeal ear. Or in the relationship ear he could hear a helping message like "I want to help you." Or the listener may hear "I am in a hurry" [which] reveals something about the speaker--self-disclosure ear. The communication on the four layers can be meant differently and also be understood differently. So [for example,] the sender can stress the appeal of the statement and the receiver can mainly receive the relationship part of the message.

There are many communication models of which this is only one. I like using models such as this for a

How do you listen attentively? Well, first you grab a paint brush, a pencil, or a piece of chalk

Being able to draw well can be somewhat like attentive and complete listening. For many people, learning a certain kind of drawing helps them to be better listeners. A receptive state that enables this kind of drawing, once learned, can be transferred to listening.

Good news: (Almost) anyone can master this state.

Today I will recommend two books to help you practice being receptive in drawing. In a later post, we will look at how to transfer that receptivity to situations in which you want to listen deeply. However, many of you probably will be able to transfer the skill as soon as you use it during drawing.

The first book is Your Artist's Brain: Use the right side of your brain to draw and paint what you see - not what you think you see. Don't worry. Despite the title, the author Carl Purcell does not include much of the inaccurate left brain/right brain "science." From the book:

I initiated a seven-year search to discover which functions of the brain artists use when drawing and the causes of the more common problems experienced by my students. I discovered that the right tools for drawing (and painting) are present in everyone's brains but we have other mental processes that subvert the activity of drawing.

The second book is a classic: Zen of Seeing: Seeing/Drawing as Meditation. The author Frederick Franck writes:

It is in order to really see, to see ever deeper, ever more intensely, hence to be fully aware and alive, that I draw what the Chinese call 'The Ten Thousand Things' around me. Drawing is the discipline by which I constantly rediscover the world.

I have learned that what I have not drawn I have never really seen, and that when I start drawing an ordinary thing, I realize how extraordinary it is, sheer miracle.

One might paraphrase the two authors and say:

• The right tools for listening are present in everyone's brain but we have other mental processes that subvert the activity of listening.
• Listening is the discipline by which I constantly rediscover the world.
  

Both drawing and listening can be vehicles for mindfulness and discovery, and I have found that the underlying state for one can be a door to the other. Moving easily between the vehicles will be the focus of another post later this month.

 

Do you think fast or slow? Typically most of us are fast most of the day

That I have not yet mentioned one of last year's books is surprising. I thought I had recommended it to you, but noticed this evening that I haven't. It was for me a must-read, so my omission is not minor. Below I link to an interview of its author Dr. Daniel Kahneman which may help you decide if you want to read Thinking, Fast and Slow.

From "The Truth About How We Think" (Gallup Management Journal):

Thinking, Fast and Slow explains that people use two methods of thinking -- System 1 and System 2. System 1 is fast, automatic, and context oriented. It accepts as true whatever seems coherent to your worldview at the moment. If you're worried about your work performance and your boss walks by looking angry, for instance, System 1 will tell you that your boss is mad at you.

System 2 is slower, deliberative, and analytical. System 2 would tell you that your boss' commute is an hour long on a heavily congested road, and his drive might have been horrible that morning. The problem with System 2 is that

Time to revisit the benefits of seeing red: Why mediators must be acutely aware of their own comfort with conflict

It has been a long while since I last posted about the value of getting angry. For a review of some of the emotion's benefits, please read these past posts:

 

• Good brain, bad brain? Bring it all to the negotiation table
• Anger—your inner fiend or your friend? Or both? What's the role of emotion?
• Grit your teeth and bear it: Get angry for all the right reasons

I was reminded today of the plus side of getting a bit heated when reading "Anger Gives You a Creative Boost" (Scientific American). From the article:

Perhaps, in some contexts, feeling angry [is] actually beneficial. This counterintuitive idea was pursued by researchers Matthijs Baas, Carsten De Dreu, and Bernard Nijstad in a series of studies  recently published in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. They found that angry people were more likely to be creative – though this advantage didn’t last for long, as the taxing nature of anger eventually leveled out creativity. This study joins several recent lines of research exploring the relative upside to anger – the ways in which anger is not only less harmful than typically assumed, but may even be helpful (though perhaps in small doses).

Of course, the benefits of anger are not universal; they are situational and more true for some people than for others. Nevertheless, in some situations, good, clean anger can be honest, productive, and aligned with one's most deeply held values.

I don't know why, in some circles, anger is nearly always shunned or considered unskillful communication. Give me a little

Excerpt from ARE WE BORN RACIST? leaves out one key to lessening in-group/out-group response

It is not news that our reactive brains respond in predictable ways to those we see as different from us. Those ways are not the same as how we respond to members of our in-groups. You can read about some of that research in this excerpt (AlterNet) from Are We Born Racist?: New Insights from Neuroscience and Positive Psychology.

Unfortunately the role that self-awareness, attention, mindfulness, can play in facilitating a person's being more reflective, less reactive, when interacting with those different from him or her is not mentioned. With training in self-awareness, attention, mindfulness, we do not need to be slaves to our brains.

As we have often pointed out here, there are those in the science community who do think we are clueless, helpless, hapless slaves. From "Missing Persons" (The Catholic Thing):

Many scientists have for some time denied the old view of what really distinguishes human beings: that we have the ability to know the truth and the freedom to choose right and wrong. It’s odd that modern science – which has given us so much knowledge about the world and useful technologies in medicine and other fields – should deny our ability to know and will. But no small segment of modern scientists regard the human capacity for knowing not, as in the past, as a kind of miracle, something of a different order than everything else we observe in the universe. For them, human knowledge is merely a kind of higher evolutionary reaction to stimuli. Indeed, if you look at the statements of some neuroscientists, they have started to call it a “folk view” that we know things and can act freely. For them, it’s determinism all the way down. We dummies – the non-neuroscientists – just don’t know it yet.

What we each think about determinism and reductionism, whether or not we think we can override our brain to be in alignment with our values, is important. It affects how we see the rights and responsibilties of our clients, and more important, what, in our own behavior, we believe we can and cannot change. Even if we are born racist, I believe we have the power to overcome reactive responses. Do you?

Sure, our brains may react and act up in ways that our reflective mind may find upsetting, even horrifying. Through self-awarensss and attention training, by increasing mindfulness skills, our reflective minds can steer. Remember: "The brain puts out the call, the mind decides whether to listen."

Interview of neuroscientist Kevin Ochsner on how habits are formed and methods to change them

In this interview, Dr. Ochsner covers several topics. He contrasts habits with thoughtful, mindful action. He explains that the latter is associated with the prefrontal cortex. He says habits are like a dog and you have to keep training to teach new tricks. Feedback, to be effective, should be immediate, specific, and positive (not elicit the fear response). Click now to listen to the rest of what Kevin has to tell us about routinized habits, thoughtful behavior, and methods for change.

From the TotalPicture Radio Web site:

Today, we discuss his brain research on how automatic and controlled processes interact in producing emotion and emotion regulation, self-knowledge, feelings of social exclusion, attributions about other individuals, placebo effects and automatic behavior and how we can use this information in leadership development. Kevin's presentation at the NeuroLeadership Summit focused on the steps we need to take to change behavior, and why negative feedback triggers counterproductive results.

In the interview, Ochsner describes the five methods of emotion regulation developed by Stanford's James Gross, which I have blogged about here in the past: Regulating in-the-way emotions in conflict resolution.

 

Come hear my keynote & breakout on neuroscience of conflict resolution at this state ADR conference

I'll be presenting the keynote address at the annual Colorado Statewide ADR Conference. In addition to the keynote, I will also be presenting one of the breakout sessions at this 4th annual conference titled "Evolving Frontiers of ADR." The event, to be held in Denver, is November 4. The early-bird registration ends October 21.

My topic: "The Mind and the Brain: 21st Century Insight for the ADR Professional."

Click to read the brochure with all the details [pdf].

I hope to see some of you there.

4 steps to changing your brain, your unwanted habits, your stress level

Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz is one of the the pioneers in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). In his book Brain Lock: Free Yourself from Obsessive-Compulsive Behavior, you may read about his four-step method of treatment and learn how they can change your brain.

Early next year, a new book he and Dr. Rebecca Gladding are writing will be available. For those of us who want to make positive changes in our lives—and brains, this book will be a valuable tool and guide because the the authors have broadly expanded the use of the four steps beyond the realm of OCD.

For a brief taste of the new book, I recommend that you read an interview of Jeff by Dr. Elisha Goldstein about how to use the four steps to reduce stress. An excerpt from this just-posted interview:

Elisha: In your book Brain Lock you present a four step process for working with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) that has gained prominence and is being used by therapy centers around the world. Tell us a bit about this 4 step process and why it works?

Jeff: The four steps came out in brain lock published in 1996. I have a new book that’s going to be out in the beginning of 2011 and the co-author, Rebecca Gladding, is former Chief Resident in Psychiatry at UCLA and now UCLA faculty. In this new book we apply these same 4 steps in OCD to a much broader application and really use it as a means for stress management.

I’ll give you both versions.

First step is the same in both, Relabeling. There’s been great work by Matthew Lieberman OF UCLA on the tremendous power of labeling on emotional faces and other things to manage Amygdala hyper-responsiveness, in other words to manage fear and stress responsiveness. This research says if we put a label on our emotion, we can help manage our response to it. So Step 1 is Relabel.

Step 2 is called Reattribute ... .

Click to read the rest of the interview.

Our hidden brain: How much of an influence does it have on our decisions?

For those of you always happy to learn more about the decision-making process (isn't that true of all conflict professionals?), here's a new book for you: The Hidden Brain: How Our Unconscious Minds Elect Presidents, Control Markets, Wage Wars, and Save Our Lives.

Right now you can click to listen to an NPR interview of the author Shankar Vedantam; it is the 11:00 segment.

And here are two reviews and an excerpt for you below.

From The Washington Post's review of the book:

In "The Hidden Brain," Vedantam reviews this new science and applies it speculatively to practical circumstances in which our subconscious leanings might mislead us. How investors choose stocks, how soldiers obey leaders in battle, how spouses respond in arguments -- these consequential behaviors can be shaped by automatic mental routines that preempt our reason. ...

From the book review "The Out-of-Sight Mind" (New York Times):

Invisible forces that control our behavior have inspired our best story tellers, from Euripides to Steven Spielberg. Whether we’re yanked around by jealous gods, Oedipal urges or poltergeists, the idea that we feel powerless to direct our own actions has a visceral appeal, one exploited by Shankar Vedantam in “The Hidden Brain,” his exploration of the unconscious mind.

Most previous popular treatments of subliminal forces haven’t been data driven. Vedantam, who until recently wrote