Brains On Purpose™

Neuroscience and social conflict: A new interdisciplinary initiative

The first meeting of the Project on Justice in Times of Transition occurred earlier this year. Matt Armstrong, one of the attendees, blogged about it at his Mountain Runner. Excerpt:

What if you put neuroscientists, social scientists, conflict resolution experts, and diplomats together in a room? Is there something to the “human dimension” of conflict that the science of the brain can inform the art of conflict resolution and mitigation? The Project on Justice in Times of Transition, in partnership with the SaxeLab at MIT, launched the initiative “Neuroscience and Social Conflict: Identifying New Approaches for the 21st Century” to find out.

The first meeting was February 9-11, 2012, at MIT in Boston. PJTT and SaxeLab brought together a high-level group of experienced leaders from the Middle East, South Africa, Northern Ireland, and Central America with conflict conflict resolution experts, social psychologists, and leading neuroscientists to survey the latest findings in neuroscience and brain research to brainstorm and exchange ideas for addressing conflict.

I attended the February meeting and it was an eye-opening few days that started early and continued over dinner into the night. The presentations were honest, devoid of grandiose assertions of magic bullets, and each were followed by collegial discussions fueled by fresh questions and ideas.

Rebecca Saxe, the Director of SaxeLab, highlighted some of the general assumptions most scientists looking at conflict and conflict resolution share:

• People respond to conflict as human beings and there is some generalized experience that can be captured
• Behaviors can reflect emotions, associations, norms, and narratives that are not accessible through cognition or introspection
• People resist changing their minds and simple persuasion is almost never sufficient to make them change

The science presentations shared research on how particular parts of the brain were involved with specific behavior and emotions, such as fear. ...

Click to read the rest of "Neuroscience and Social Conflict: Identifying New Approaches for the 21st Century."

Click to read a past post mentioning the work of Dr. Rebecca Saxe.

Nice review for mediators on how the story of conflict can shift, twist, and turn

By now, I believe most conflict professionals are aware of the malleability of memory, the problematic role that storytelling therefore can play in a dispute, and how to "correct" for the shifting narrative. Here's a concise reminder of the shiftiness of memory.

From "When Memory Commits an Injustice" (Wall Street Journal):

Consider our collective memories of 9/11. For the last 10 years, researchers led by William Hirst of the New School and Elizabeth Phelps of New York University have been tracking the steady decay of what people recall about that tragic event. They first quizzed people shortly after the attacks, then after one year, and found that 37% of the details had already changed. Although the most recent data have yet to be published, they're expected to reveal that the vast majority of remembered "facts" are now make-believe.

...

In recent years, neuroscientists have documented how these mistakes happen. It turns out that the act of summoning the past to the surface actually changes the memory itself. Although we've long imagined our memories as a stable form of information, a data file writ into the circuits of the brain, that persistence is an illusion. In reality, our recollections are always being altered, the details of the past warped by our present feelings and knowledge. The more you remember an event, the less reliable that memory becomes.

Poor impulse control keeps children from sharing

News release from Max-Planck-Gesellschaft:

Late development of the prefrontal cortex explains why children find it hard to suppress selfish impulses

When children fail to share fairly with each other, it may not be due to poor understanding of what constitutes right and wrong; after all, they grasp early on that fairness and generosity can be advantageous. However, scientists at the Leipzig-based Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences have discovered that it takes some time before they possess the neuronal preconditions to act in accordance with this understanding. The prefrontal cortex, a region of the brain that is important for behavioural control, develops relatively late, so that sharing is more easily said than done for primary school children. The finding could impact educational strategies designed to promote successful social behaviour, the scientists write in the March 8th issue of the journal Neuron.

Sharing possessions is an essential theme in every community, but fraught with conflict. A question which remains enigmatic is how and at what stage of development fair sharing occurs spontaneously. Do children suddenly understand what is fair from one day to the next, and then behave accordingly? Or do they simply become better at controlling selfish impulses?

Using game theory, scientists have been studying strategic behaviour in sharing situations. Researchers Nikolaus Steinbeis, Boris Bernhardt and Tania Singer used two of the best-known experiments in this field – the Dictator Game and the Ultimatum Game – with a total of 174 schoolchildren between six and 13 years of age.

In this context, the children were given poker chips which they could later exchange for age-appropriate gifts. First,

Interpersonal neurobiology: Great slate of speakers next month at UCLA

If I were going to be near southern California in March, I would definitely consider attending this conference. The lineup of speakers is excellent; it includes Dan Siegel, Iain McGilchrist, Marion Solomon, Diane Ackerman, and John Gottman.

From the brochure for "Toward a New Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships" to be held March 9-11, 2012:

Discover how relationships shape the brain... And how the brain shapes relationships.

The Annual Attachment / Interpersonal Neurobiology Conference explores clinical implications of recent interpersonal neurobiological models, including brain/mind/body systems, and newer body-based trauma models that focus on the enduring impact of stress on the central and autonomic nervous systems. The goal is to integrate neuroscience, attachment research, and developmental studies to expand empirical ways to cultivate health and healing in our lives. We will look at how this impacts communications in relationships, including patient-therapist and couples interactions.

Those attending will hear perspectives on new body-based trauma models. The discussion provides a framework for understanding the chronic nature of trauma-related behaviors and how they affect interpersonal communications.

Notes of resolution: The impact of music on conflict

Because the amount of research on the impact of music on the brain continues to grow, as does the collaboration between musicians and neuroscientists, I grow ever more optimistic about the benefits and usefulness of music in the resolution of disputes. (Click to read some of my past posts about music and dispute resolution.)

We are already learning that knowledge about the brain can help us in resolving conflict. The number of conflict resolution practitioners utilizing brain knowledge has grown since I first started this blog nearly five years ago. The use of music in our arena is not yet common but I don't think that scarcity will continue much longer. Music affects most of the brain and I firmly believe it can be harnessed to facilitate agreement, or help make wise decisions not to agree.

From "Scientists study music's effects on our brains and bodies" (Isthmus-The Daily Page):

[I]t turns out that music is a good subject for brain research because it affects so many neurological pathways.

The combination of music and neuroscience is a hot topic these days, and there is an exciting convergence happening between neuroscientists and musicians. Old walls have broken down, and the bridge between the disciplines can be crossed without suspicion. Researchers use music to give us insight into time, emotion, healing and language — a glimpse into our human nature.

And that's what is at the heart of conflict and its resolution: Time, emotion, healing, language, human nature. Music may be able to yield insight about why we disagree, and will likely help to quell tension and lessen contention, disharmony, and discord.

In addition to the research I've been doing about music in the last couple of years, I am in conversation with a few people who are experts in both music and conflict to create some musical tools for conflict professionals. 2012 will be the birth year of music playing a big part in mediation. Listen for it!

Note: Here is a blog post with a link to the program mentioned in the article linked to above: In this program, neuroscience meets jazz, mindfulness, and improv (idealawg).

Thanks to mediate.com for giving us a series on the Thomas-Kilmann conflict model

I've been using Thomas-Kilmann for decades in seminars I teach, on many topics; the model is very versatile and always sparks helpful discussion and awareness. (Below are links to my previous posts on T-K.) Today I read in mediate.com that the instrument and model is 40 years old! In recognition of that anniversary, mediate.com is publishing a series of articles by Ralph Kilmann.

The model is based on 5 ways of responding to conflict: avoiding, accommodating, collaborating, compromising, and collaborating. Kilmann first writes about avoiding; click to read what he has to say. I will add links below to all the articles as they are published.

Previous posts of mine on Thomas-Kilmann:

• What's your conflict style? Take a quiz to find out
• The secret weapon of happiness: Smile your way to success for yourself and your client

And speaking of anniversaries, last week marked the 400th edition of mediate.com. We are very fortunate to have such an excellent resources for those of us in the field of dispute resolution. Thank you, thanks a million, mediate.com!

The other articles by Kilmann at mediate.com:

• How to Use (And Not Just Choose) A Conflict Mode
• Collaborating: The Most Complex and Least Understood Mode
• Competing, Accommodating, and Compromising

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

Book on brain featured in current Understanding in Conflict newsletter

Now online: the August edition of the newsletter published by the organization offering the mediation training I most highly recommend. This month the newsletter of the Center for Understanding in Conflict includes these articles:

• The Differences Between Mediation and Collaborative Practice
• How to Loop When Someone is Aggressive or Domineering
• Notes from Norman [Fischer]

And the recommended book for the month is Buddha's Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love, and Wisdom. [Click for a post about the book.] The review:

This book examines the intersection of psychology, neurology, and contemplative practice to help us understand how our brains affect our mental states of happiness, love and wisdom.  Our ability to be aware of our inner state impacts our effectiveness as professionals working with people in conflict.  This book educates us about the science underlying our inner functioning and the practices that will help us to work with our inner world for the benefit of ourselves and others.

I would add that the book helps us to work with the inner world of our clients, too.

Click to sign up for the newsletter.

Become a wizard? Become a vampire? Become a collaborative disputant?

This research had me smiling about both real and fantasy-realm possibilities. How about you? What do you think? Could the narrative collective-assimilation hypothesis be used in mediation?

Abstract of "Becoming a Vampire Without Being Bitten: The Narrative Collective-Assimilation Hypothesis" (Psychological Science):

We propose the narrative collective-assimilation hypothesis—that experiencing a narrative leads one to psychologically become a part of the collective described within the narrative. In a test of this hypothesis, participants read passages from either a book about wizards (from the Harry Potter series) or a book about vampires (from the Twilight series). Both implicit and explicit measures revealed that participants who read about wizards psychologically became wizards, whereas those who read about vampires psychologically became vampires. The results also suggested that narrative collective assimilation is psychologically meaningful and relates to the basic human need for connection. Specifically, the tendency to fulfill belongingness needs through group affiliation moderated the extent to which narrative collective assimilation occurred, and narrative collective assimilation led to increases in life satisfaction and positive mood, two primary outcomes of belonging. The implications for the importance of narratives, the need to belong to groups, and social surrogacy are discussed.

Excerpt:

Wishing some of your clients were a bit more hypo-egoic? Two practices that might help

What if your mediation clients had an accurate assessment of their abilities, were able to acknowledge their mistakes, had a lower self-focus (with focus on self often taking a backseat), did not have over-active self-talk, kept their place in the world in perspective, and appreciated others? The items I just listed are some indicators of hypo-egoic states. A mediation between people in hypo-egoic states might be fairly easy to facilitate, don't you think?

"Hypo-Egoic States: Personal and Interpersonal Consequences of Attentuated Self-Attention, Image Concerns, and Ego-Involvement" was the title of one of the symposia I attended at this year's Association for Psychological Science annual conference. This one was presented by Drs. Mark Leary, June Price Tangney, Jennifer Crocker, and Kirk Warren Brown.

The four presentations in the symposium were on humility, self-esteem, mindfulness, and a model of hypo-egoic processes. The theory and research behind each topic were intellectually intriguing, and the possible practical applications

Use fMRI to measure the usefulness of conflict resolution programs? Me, I don't think so!

This guest blog post at Scientific American hovers nicely along the continuum between breezy and meaty. Its author Kristina Bjoran is a student in MIT's Graduate Program in Science Writing; she has written  a brief overview of some of the disagreements in the world of neuroscience. It is a good read for anyone interested in the brain and conflict resolution.

Excerpt:

If [Emile Bruneau] succeeds in quantifying empathy, then perhaps, he says, there will finally be a way to measure whether or not conflict resolution programs are working. If a participant in such a program has "greater" empathic activity in his brain after a program, then, obviously, it’s working. If not, adjustments to the program would have to be made.

I don't think a brain scan will ever be able to gauge the efficacy if a conflict resolution program or technique, at least not in the foreseeable future. But not everyone agrees on the potential of brain scans.

Ten years ago, cognitive neuroscience was skeptical about trying to localize any kind of social process in the brain. The endeavor has been likened, by the harshest of critics, to a new wave of phrenology, the pseudoscientific idea that bumps on a skull indicate some kind of "brain map." The skeptics argue that such behaviors and processes, like empathy, can’t be pinpointed to one specific place—the processes

Neuroscience of conflict: The silly part of this approach is getting even sillier

Neuro-nonsense abounds in what people are saying about the brain in conflict and how to harness the brain for dispute resolution. I understand the quest for easy answers and simple steps, but the brain is too complex to be reduced to cookbook clarity.

The most we can say is, "We have these clues, and those clues may indicate that doing _____ [insert recommended behavior] might be helpful sometimes for people in dispute." That's it! That is the level at which conflict professionals can benefit from brain science. If you hear any greater degree of certainty about how the brain behaves, be very wary. We are not yet (and may never be) at the place where we can make statements about the brain that are easily, simply, quickly, and predictably useful in conflict resolution.

Knowing the clues we have about the brain can be helpful, but that knowledge probably will only leave you in awe of the brain's complexity and of how much we still have to learn. For example, we know that a person who is acting from his reactive brain is different from one who is operating from a more reflective brain state. Can we say exactly where reactivity and reflectiveness reside in the brain? And exactly how to move from one to the other? No.

We can work with clients to recognize the difference, knowing that difference may vary from person to person. And from situation to situation. And from day to day.

If you are interested in the brain and what we know about how it operates, then I highly, highly, highly recommend that you read