If you follow my blogs, you know I have for years been decrying the people who tell us that knowledge of the brain can solve conflicts. Sure, knowing how the brain works can be helpful in some—probably not many yet—broad and not-always-fully-understood ways.
Should conflict professionals learn about the brain? Of course. However, in some circles, the application of neuroscience to conflict resolution has gone into the zone of fiction to a degree that should cause head shaking.
A new book seems to present assistance in getting sober from the neuroscience intoxication that has seeped into corners of the conflict resolution community. Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain will be keeping me occupied during any free time over the Thanksgiving holidays. I have been anticipating the book since hearing its author Dr. Michael Gazzaniga speak last May.
Reading a review of the book today increased my anticipation. From "Rethinking Thinking" (Wall Street Journal):
Many aspects of everyday human consciousness elude neural reduction. For we belong to a boundless, infinitely elaborated community of minds that has been forged out of a trillion cognitive handshakes over hundreds of thousands of years. This community is the theater of our daily existence. It separates life in the jungle from life in the office, and because it is a community of minds, it cannot be inspected by looking at the activity of the solitary brain.
Yes, I agree! But, alas, Raymond Tallis, the author of the article, writes so much better than I do.
I have also blogged about neurolaw here and at idealawg. On that topic, Tallis writes:
One purpose of Mr. Gazzaniga's book is to reveal the implications of this mistaken notion for one of the most sinister of the neuro-prefixed pseudo-disciplines: "neuro-law." Neuro-law aims to replace the untidy processes of the current judicial system with something more biologically savvy. Isn't criminal behavior the result of (abnormal) brain function? If so, the brain, not the defendant, should take the rap.
Mr. Gazzaniga will have none of this, and he deplores "neuroscience oozing into the courtroom." The author savages the uncritical use of neuro-technology in court and laments that juries and judges have little idea of the shakiness of the connections between minor abnormalities on brain scans and the commission of a particular crime. Neuro-law is not merely premature; it overlooks the fact that, as Mr. Gazzaniga says, "we are people, not brains," and brain scans tell us little about our personhood.
Mr. Gazzaniga's incomparable knowledge, along with his mastery of the art of making things clear without oversimplifying them, means that "Who's in Charge?" is a joy to read. ...
That's a joy I plan to savor just as soon as the book enters my hands. If you read Who's in Charge?, let me know what you think, please.
Comments