Brains On Purpose™

Excellent books I have been reading on the brain, storytelling, conflict, and more

This month, I traveled to California because of a serious health matter of a close family member. One of the benefits of the trip was much time to read. I could not get online except when at Starbuck's so had more than the typical amount of time with nothing distracting or calling to me besides books!

In fact, I have been reading so many good books that I wanted to list them in case some of you may enjoy an item or two from my recently-read list. Here they are (I have included a couple from earlier this year, too):

• Philosophy for Life
• Wired for Story: The Writer's Guide to Using Brain Science to Hook Readers from the Very First Sentence [Note added October 22, 2012: Unfortunately most of the citations in this book are to articles from the popular media and not to the original research]
• Pathological Altruism
• Sin and Syntax: How to Craft Wickedly Effective Prose
• Reframing
• When Can You Trust the Experts?: How to Tell Good Science from Bad in Education
• The Five Percent: Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts
• The Antidote
• The Story Template
• Psychobabble and Biobunk
• What Are You Laughing At?: A Comprehensive Guide to the Comedic Event
• Pieces of Light
• How To Play the Harmonica: and Other Life Lessons Click to watch my dad playing the harmonica
• Our Secret Territory: The Essence of Storytelling
• Conflicts : A Better Way to Resolve Them
• Maximum Brainpower: Challenging the Brain for Health and Wisdom
• Time Warped
• The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human

Let me know if you have read any of these and what you thought after the reading. What books have been getting your attention lately?

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

Want to understand power better? A new book from neuroscientist Ian Robertson may help

I have posted about Dr. Robertson a number of times in the past (see links below). And, at all my presentations, I recommend his books; he is an excellent neuroscientist who writes so well I often say that he writes like a poet. I see that he has written a new book The Winner Effect: The Neuroscience of Success and Failure and wanted to let Robertson fans (and those not yet acquainted with his work) know about The Winner Effect. Because I have not read it, I will link to a few articles about the book.

First, from the Guardian, is "Bankers and the neuroscience of greed." Excerpt:

...Power and money both act on the brain's reward system, which if over-stimulated for long periods develops appetites that are difficult to satisfy, just as is the case for drug addiction. We call these appetites greed and greedy people are never satisfied. That is the challenge for politicians and regulators.

Next from Ireland's Independent, is "Power and the brain: Kenny, Blair and Fianna Fail." Excerpt:

Prof Robertson said one of the consequences of power is it makes individuals focus on the positive rewards.

"No government should be in power for more than 10 years. We had a real problem of that excess of power in terms of the people in charge here."

An article from Irish Times is titled "Powerful insights into how brain works." Excerpt:

Dopamine related to motivation?

After reading books such as Psychology's Ghosts: The Crisis in the Profession and the Way Back, I am even more likely to see most research studies as, at best, clues, and clues only only in the material world. That's how I view this study written about below, but I post the news release here because I can never be reminded too often that we are each different; this study is another reminder that one size does not fit all.

News release from Society for Neuroscience:

DIFFERENCES IN DOPAMINE MAY DETERMINE HOW HARD PEOPLE WORK

Washington, DC — Whether someone is a “go-getter” or a “slacker” may depend on individual differences in the brain chemical dopamine, according to new research in the May 2 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience. The findings suggest that dopamine affects cost-benefit analyses.

The study found that people who chose to put in more effort — even in the face of long odds — showed greater dopamine response in the striatum and ventromedial prefrontal cortex, areas of the brain important in reward and motivation. In contrast, those who were least likely to expend effort showed increased dopamine response in the insula, a brain region involved in perception, social behavior, and self-awareness.

Researchers led by Michael Treadway, a graduate student working with David Zald, PhD, at Vanderbilt University, asked participants to rapidly press a button in order to earn varying amounts of money. Participants got to decide how hard they were willing to work depending on the odds of a

Forthcoming Events in Mindfulness, Law & Dispute Resolution

From an e-mail compiled by Professor Leonard Riskin:

The Initiative on Mindfulness in Law and Dispute Resolution, University of Florida Levin College of Law
April 1, 2012
 
Forthcoming Events, News, and Resources Related to Mindfulness in Law and Dispute Resolution
(Note: This is not a comprehensive (or systematically prepared list of events related to mindfulness in law and dispute resolution. Other resources for information on events dealing with mindfulness in law and dispute resolution are listed at the end of this document.)
 
April 26-29, 2012, International Symposia for Contemplative Studies, Denver, Colorado. http://www.mindandlife.org/research-initiatives/sri/sri12/ [This is a better link.]
 
June 16-20, 2012. Mind and Life Summer Research Institute: The Embodied Mind, Garrison, N.Y. The Embodied Mind. http://www.mindandlife.org/research-initiatives/sri/sri12/
 
Tools of Mindful Awareness for Lawyers, Mediators, Negotiators, Judges, Arbitrators, and Managers
June 21-23, 2012. Malibu, CA
Oct. 14-16, 2010, Woodstock, VT.
Mar. 14-16, Baltimore, MD.
 
Sponsored by Pepperdine University School of Law, Institute for Dispute Resolution. Led by Leonard Riskin, Professor, University of Florida College of Law and Visiting Professor, Northwestern University School of Law, and Rachel Wohl, Director, Maryland Supreme Court Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office . See http://law.pepperdine.edu/straus/training-and-conferences/  or contact Lori Rushford at [email protected].  [Note: Full-time law school professors may be able to attend for a nominal fee.]
 
June 27-29, 2012, Chicago (Downtown). Summer Institute on Negotiation: Critical Skills for Effective Negotiating.Northwestern University, School of Continuing Studies.  Led by Leonard Riskin, Chesterfield Smith Professor, University of Florida Levin College of Law and Visiting Professor, Northwestern University School of Law, and Daniel Shapiro, Harvard Law School & Harvard Medical School; and Director, Harvard International Negotiation Program. This course, offered for the seventh time, integrates instruction and practice in mindfulness with the teachings of Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro’s award-winning Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate (Viking 2005).  For more information, see http://www.scs.northwestern.edu/summernu/programs/negotiation.cfm
 
July 29-August 3, 2012. Annual Summer Session on Contemplative Pedagogy. Northampton, MA, Smith College.    Sponsored by the Association for Contemplative Mind in Higher Education. http://www.acmhe.org/
 
NEW: Spring 2013.  Second Annual Mindful Lawyer Conference, University of California-Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, California.  Sponsored by the Berkeley Initiative for Mindfulness in Law,  http://www.law.berkeley.edu/mindfulness.htm
 
 
Recent and Forthcoming Publications
Richard J. Davidson with Sharon Begley, The Emotional Life of Your Brain: How Its Unique Patterns Affect the Way You Think, Feel, and Live--and How You Can Change Them (Penguin Group, 2012).
(Congressman) Tim Ryan, A Mindful Nation: How a Simple Practice Can Help Us Reduce Stress, Improve Performance, and Recapture the American Spirit (Hay House 2012).
Leo F. Smyth, Escalation and Mindfulness, _28 Negotiation Journal 45 (Jan. 2012)
Symposium, The Mindful Lawyer, Journal of Legal Education, May2012)
Articles by Charles Halpern, Angela Harris, Katherine Larkin-Wong, Leonard Riskin,, & David Zlotnick
 
Once published, these articles will be publically available at (http://www.swlaw.edu/jle)
 
 
Other News:
The University of California at Berkeley School of Law has announced the formation of the Berkeley Initiative for Mindfulness in Law. Charles Halpern is the Director.  http://www.law.berkeley.edu/mindfulness.htm.
 
Other Resources

Wah, wah, wah: Excellent example of why people don't listen, even if you have good information

The blog post is titled "Meet Me Halfway" (Scientific American) and its author writes about one kind of two-way communication: The speaker gives information and the listener, well, listens. The blogger then gives us some interesting neuroscience-related information about the way the brains of speakers and listeners can synchronize.  And then she writes about scientists having much good information for the public—if the public would only listen!

But the vast majority of the populace still cheerfully go about their daily lives without giving science (or scientists) a second thought — when they’re not actively hostile to it. We’re simply not reaching them. To borrow a line from Cool Hand Luke: “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”

The missing ingredient from her blog post is benefits. Why would a member of the populace want to listen? What would they gain by paying attention to a scientist? Of course, this is basic sales theory: I won't listen to you unless and until you show me what's in it for me to pay attention.

The blogger seems to leave out that powerful and essential ingredient of benefits.

Which is why I’m speaking directly to the listeners out there now who rarely give science a second thought and/or assume they could never have a meaningful connection with a scientist: you need to meet scientists halfway. It’s not enough to sit back and wait for them to impress or entertain you before you’ll deign to give science a smidgen of your attention — not if you want to truly grok what science is all about.

I am reminded of a salesperson who continues to stress the features of his or her product while ignoring what the product

Although there's no certain and fool-proof way to persuade, people keep looking for the magic manipulator

How we are persuaded is individual and situational, so beware of anyone trying to sell you a surefire way to successfully convince, cajole or persuade. Nevertheless, human beings continue looking for that elusive brainwashing soap that always works. The search will probably continue as long as we are on this planet.

Speaking of soap, here's a very entertaining and informative article about some of the efforts in the world of marketing made over the years to discover the persuasion key. From "Retail therapy: How Ernest Dichter, an acolyte of Sigmund Freud, revolutionised marketing" (The Economist):

Between the late 1930s and 1960s Dichter became famous for transforming the fates of businesses such as Procter & Gamble, Exxon, Chrysler, General Mills and DuPont. His insight changed the way hundreds of products were sold, from cars to cake mix. He pioneered research techniques such as the focus group, understood the power of word-of-mouth persuasion and earned startling fees for his theories. By the late 1950s his global business reached an annual turnover of $1m ($8m today), and he enjoyed a reputation as the Freud of the supermarket age.

Dichter’s radical approach to goading shoppers, called “motivational research”, was considered so successful that he was even accused of threatening America’s national well-being. Americans have become “the most manipulated people outside the Iron Curtain,” complained Vance Packard, a

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

Interested in music and conflict resolution? Symposium in May and call for presentations

The announcement:

9th and 10th May 2011, University of Exeter, SocArts UK
Call for contributions
In the past decade there has been a growing interest in music and social conflict both inside and outside academia. Interdisciplinary research from music sociologists, ethnomusicologists, music psychologists and musicologists has focused on music’s dual use, both as a resource for conflict transformation and as a medium that can be used to incite conflict and channel violence. This research has also dovetailed with practical initiatives by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), local communities, academics and individuals attempting to utilise music to avoid or transform conflicts. Together these activities are slowly improving our understanding of the interesting, and at times pivotal, functions of music related activities in conflict and post-conflict scenarios. However, it is clear that there is still a great deal of

"Building Trust: Neuroeconomist Wants to Know How It’s Done"

Excerpt:

For Mason neuroeconomist Kevin McCabe, economics is a matter of trust. Trust, or what he sometimes calls the trust paradigm, has been at the root of his economic experiments for the last decade.

Director of the Center for the Study of Neuroeconomics, McCabe came to Mason in 2001 from the University of Arizona as part of Nobel laureate Vernon Smith’s research group.

It was at Arizona that the first trust experiments and the idea of neuroeconomics began.

“We were looking at individual behavior and realized there wasn’t a really good [scientific] model for it,” he says. Research led McCabe and his colleagues to the fields of evolutionary and cognitive psychology, then, finally, to cognitive and social neuroscience.

“In exploring, we realized that there was this whole new field that was just starting to get at the biological foundations of human cognition,” says McCabe, who holds a joint appointment with the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study and the School of Law.

“It became obvious that, if we were going to build a scientific model of the economic behavior of individuals, it would need to be based on the same biological model that neuroscientists were exploring.”

And the field of neuroeconomics was born.

Click to read the rest of "Building Trust: Neuroeconomist Wants to Know How It’s Done" (University News George Mason University).

Another clue about what can trigger in-group/out-group bias: Accents?

Do we have a bias against people who do not speak as we do? Some research reported at this year's meeting of the Society for Neuroscience suggests that we may. From "Unfamiliar Accents Turn Off Humans And Songbirds" (NPR):

New research suggests that our brains have a built-in bias against people whose accents don't sound like our own.

That's the conclusion of Scottish researchers who presented their work [great overview of the research at this link] at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego.

The team ... used a functional MRI scanner to study the brains of 20 native Scots as they listened to native English speakers with Scottish, American and southern English accents. They focused on the brain's temporal voice area, which seems to specialize in processing characteristics of particular voices.

What is one hypothesis drawn by the researchers as a result of their observations? From "Listeners' Brains Respond More to Native Accent Speakers; Imaging Study Suggests Accents Are Subtle 'Insider' or 'Outsider' Signal to the Brain" (Science Daily):

"The pattern of neural activity differed strikingly in response to their own specific accent compared with other English accents," [Patricia] Bestelmeyer said. "The initial results suggest that such vocal samples somehow reflect group membership or social identity, so that 'in-group' voices are processed differently from the 'out-group.'"

This research has gotten a fair amount of attention in the media and blogosphere, including from The Dana Foundation blog. From We prefer people who sound like us:

... Dr. Bestelmeyer noted that people attribute more positive traits to their native accent, indicating that we are more likely to hire someone or buy from someone who sounds like us.

Anyone with the goal of persuading others may want to to follow this line of research as it unfolds. If you are interested in that and other voice research, you may want to check in periodically at University of Glasgow's Voice Neurorecognition Lab.

Are there advantages to face-to-face mediations? When are they necessary? This white paper looks to neuroscience for answers

Although this white paper is about business meetings, much of it also would apply to conflict resolution sessions. From the Executive Summary of the white paper "The Future of Meetings: The Case for Face-to-Face" (found on the Web site of the Cornell Center for Hospitality Research):

With the advent of virtual-meeting technology, the issue of how to format group meetings and events has become remarkably complex. Meetings can be completely virtual, completely face-to-face, or a hybrid of the two. Leading companies are using all three formats. The challenge for meeting planners is to decide which format is most effective for important business outcomes. Rather than rely on personal preferences or currently popular approaches, the decision regarding meeting type is a strategic one that should rest on specific, scientific criteria. This paper examines those science-based decision criteria to help executives determine when face-to-face is the most effective approach to large-group meetings or events. This decision is important because face-to-face meetings require the greatest investment of all meeting types, and thus carry the greatest expectations for a strong return on investment. Face-to-face is most likely to be the best approach in the following three business situations:

(1)          To capture attention, particularly when you want to initiate something new or different;

(2)          To inspire a positive emotional climate, as a way to catalyze collaboration, innovation, and performance; and

(3)          To build human networks and relationships, realizing that information can increasingly be shared virtually whereas the greater value is in people networks and relationships.

You download the white paper at the above link. For another summary of it, read Why Invest in Face-to-Face Meetings? Look to Neuroscience" (Corporate Meetings & Incentives). Excerpt: