Brains On Purpose™

Adding "neuro" to a word supposedly adds credibility but often signals neurohype

Listen to Christian Jarrett, neuroscientist turned science writer, describing the many myths about the brain covered in today's media (kuow.org). The interview of Jarrett is less than 10 minutes long and worth a few minutes of your time. Jarrett has a new book coming out in the fall titled Great Myths of the Brain. I am looking forward to the read.

Seven challenges when using the neuroscience lens to see the world

Over the years, I have learned that people reading this blog come from a wide range of belief systems, including atheist, agnostic, and those involved to large or small degree in various spiritual and religious practices. Although this blog post to which I am linking today is written by a Christian and part of the post is from a Christian perspective, I think anyone can learn from what Dr. William Struthers calls the Seven Dangerous Neuro-Temptations (The Table, blog of Biola University). Click to see how he defines neuro-essentialism, neuro-manipulation, neuro-divination, neuro-absolution, neuro-narcissism, neuro-normalcy, and neuro-privilege.

"The Trouble with Mirror Neurons": Do people really even have them?

From "The Trouble with Mirror Neurons" (mindful):

When researchers discovered neurons in monkey brains that fired when an action was performed or observed, they were dubbed “mirror neurons.” And they quickly became the go-to explanation for empathy. Decades later, says Sharon Begley, the evidence that human beings have them is sketchy at best.

...

Mirror neurons were indeed a paradigm-changing discovery. From the observation that some premotor neurons fire when action is observed rather than performed, however, it is quite a leap to empathy, autism, and the rest. It’s natural to root for the human brain to have as many cool components as possible, and enticing to think that one of them offers a simple and elegant answer to the question of what make us human. But even if it turns out that we don’t have these nifty mirror neurons, it doesn’t make us any less empathetic. We just lack a simple neurological explanation for it.

Click to read the rest.

Resistance to evidence: A possible reason mediators make unsubstantiated claims?

It is often a mystery to me why mediators will make statements about the practice of conflict resolution that are unproven or even inconsistent with research. Now, after reading "Why many clinical psychologists are resistant to evidence-based practice: Root causes and constructive remedies" (Clinical Psychology Review), I think I have some clues. Although the article is focusing on therapists, I believe it may relate to the attitudes and opinions of some conflict professionals.

The article does not help much to explain why mediators will make assertions about (and Tweet and reTweet) research they have not read (getting their information only from abstracts or press releases), but it does perhaps shed some light on other of their claims.

The authors in the article list six reasons for resistance to EBP (evidence-based practice). One of them is "naïve realism, which can lead clinicians to conclude erroneously that client change is due to an intervention itself rather than to a host of competing explanations." From the section on naive realism (cites removed for ease of reading):

Another clue that brain locationism is likely wrong or misleading: Why is the location concept sticky as glue?

Locationism is when people talk about the brain as if its activities or functions happen or are governed in just one location. For example, someone may say, "Here is the place in the brain for talking and the location for balking and the place for walking." I have blogged about this misperception before, e.g, here, here, and here. For some reason, I guess because it makes explanations easier and the brain simpler, the notion hangs on and on and on.

Related to a different, alternative theory—that a brain function results from the brain working as a team and not at a single location—is this new research. From "‘Brain waves’ challenge area-specific view of brain activity" (KU LEUVEN):

Our understanding of brain activity has traditionally been linked to brain areas – when we speak, the speech area of the brain is active. New research by an international team of psychologists led by David Alexander and Cees van Leeuwen (Laboratory for Perceptual Dynamics) shows that this view may be overly rigid. The entire cortex, not just the area responsible for a certain function, is activated when a given task is initiated. Furthermore, activity occurs in a pattern: waves of activity roll from one side of the brain to the other.

The brain can be studied on various scales, researcher David Alexander explains: "You have the neurons, the circuits between the neurons, the Brodmann areas – brain areas that correspond to a certain function – and the entire cortex. Traditionally, scientists looked at local activity when studying brain activity, for example, activity in the Brodmann areas. To do this, you take EEG's (electroencephalograms) to measure the brain’s electrical activity while a subject performs a task and then you try to trace that activity back to one or more brain areas."

Click to read the rest.

Is your clients' conflict water, ice, or vapor? Insights from the science of complexity

Reading the Executive Summary of a presentation that will be given this week in Davos* reminded me of some of the problems with the use of neuroscience in conflict resolution: reductionism, for example. And reminded me that mediators should be paying as much (maybe more) attention to complexity as they are to neuroscience. Why, you may ask? Take a few minutes to read these well-written, easily-understood 7 pages titled "Perspectives on a Hyperconnected World: Insights from the Science of Complexity" and I think you will understand.

Taking just one example, that of reductionism, here's an excerpt from those 7 pages:

Most present-day leaders have been trained to assume that the world behaves according to simple rules. This mindset reduces complex facts, entities, phenomena, or structures to some simple notion. Reductionism totally ignores the phenomenon of emergence, i.e. the fact that the whole has properties that cannot be reduced to the properties of the parts. As complexity scientist John Holland notes, "For the last 400 years science has advanced by reductionism. The idea is that you could understand the world, all of nature, by examining smaller and smaller pieces of it. When assembled, the small pieces would explain the whole".

Reductionism and water

Water has the property of being liquid, but none of the molecules out of which water is constituted has this property. Liquidity is determined by the way the water molecules interact and the patterns resulting from this. These patterns are different for ice and for vapor.

Can you think of any examples where reductionism has been applied to the neuroscience of conflict resolution? Or even to mediation without the brain science? Where a conflict is treated as if it is ice or water when it is probably in fact vapor? I can.

*The presentation this week at the World Economic Forum will be given by Geoffrey West and Laszlo Barabasi, co-chairs of the committee that prepared the report. The whole committee is listed on page 8 here. Click to read my interview of Irene Sanders, one of the committee members. See also this post.

"Mirror neurons - the most hyped concept in neuroscience?" Maybe tied with oxytocin

Which is more hyped? Mirror neurons or oxytocin? I guess it depends on the day you're asking, or the blogs you are reading, or the conferences you are attending. There's is no doubt that the silliness surrounding both is a wonder to watch. Some people have a need to reduce their worlds to simple notions; mirror neurons and oxytocin are two concepts they've grabbed onto with avid vigor and ignorant excitement.

Click to read some past posts about the oxytocin hype. Today I bring to your attention to a post on mirror neuron brainlessness, published on a Psychology Today blog by Dr. Christian Jarrett. From "Mirror neurons - the most hyped concept in neuroscience?":

Motor cells that respond to the sight of other people moving are intriguing, there’s no doubt. It’s likely they play a role in important social cognitions. But to claim that they make us empathic, and to raise them up as neuroscience’s holy grail, as the ultimate brain-based root of humanity, is ridiculous. The evidence I’ve mentioned is admittedly somewhat biased, designed to counteract the hype and show just how much debate and doubt persists. In fact, the very existence of mirror neurons in the human brain is still disputed by some. That’s where we’re at with the study of these cells. We’re still trying to find out whether they exist in humans, where they are, and what exactly it is they do. Mirror neurons are fascinating but they aren’t the answer to what makes us human. [Sorry. I can't get Typepad to indent the quote.]

Click to read the rest. The post's a good antidote to the presentations one hears and reads by those overly taken with mirror neurons.

Neuro-nitwittery and brain aberrations: Why are people brain-crazed?

Why has putative neuroscience flooded the culture? And why don't some people recognize how much brain science is over-hyped? What is that people are really seeking when they buy the pop-science books or attend the neuro-this and neuro-that presentations? What do readers of these books (and articles) and attendees of these events think neuroscience can provide? Chances are high that whatever is being sought will not be delivered by brain science.

Everyday this neuro thing becomes more widespread; the number of pilgrims to Mount Brain grows; the promises of what the brain can tell us increase in outlandishness. Fortunately, articles and blog posts are being written to warn us about the growing brain silliness. Today I call your attention to two.

From "Your brain on pseudoscience" (NewStatesman):

An intellectual pestilence is upon us. Shop shelves groan with books purporting to explain, through snazzy brain-imaging studies, not only how thoughts and emotions function, but how politics and religion work, and what the correct answers are to age-old philosophical controversies. The dazzling real achievements of brain research are routinely pressed into service for questions they were never designed to answer. This is the plague of neuroscientism – aka neurobabble, neurobollocks, or neurotrash – and it’s everywhere.

...

Distortion of what and how much we know is bound to occur, Paul Fletcher points out, if the literature is cherry-picked.

“Having outlined your theory,” he says, “you can then cite a finding from a neuroimaging study identifying, for example, activity in a brain region such as the insula . . . You then select from among the many theories of insula function, choosing the one that best fits with your overall hypothesis, but neglecting to mention that nobody really knows what the insula does or that there are many ideas about its possible function.”

But the great movie-monster of nearly all the pop brain literature is another region: the amygdala. It is

Mediation is not the only arena where neuromyths abound: A highly recommended article

As attention on neuroscience from mediators grows, so does the inaccurate information and unwarranted extrapolation from the research. That's not a new observation; I have blogged about the problem many times in the past. (One antidote: See below for titles of a couple of good books to help you be a wise consumer of brain science.)

This growth of neuromyths is not happening only in the field of conflict resolution. Frontiers in Educational Psychology has just published an article detailing many of the most common neuromyths in education. Click to read "Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers." The test at the end might be fun for you to take. Some of the neuromyths listed have been presented by mediators as accurate: for example, #15 regarding learning styles.

The article is very good. The problems described with teachers incorporating neuroscience into the classroom parallel those problems with science being imported into the conflict resolution setting. If a practitioner is going to incorporate neuroscience into his or her mediation models and processes, caution and discernment is recommended. Not everything you hear or read is accurate.

I frequently recommend these two books to increase one's ability to discern what brain research might be of practical assistance in the field.

• Psychology's Ghosts: The Crisis in the Profession and the Way Back (I have probably received more thanks from people who have read this book than any other I have recommended; it's a must-read for anyone wishing to incorporate psychology or neuroscience into their work)
• When Can You Trust the Experts: How to Tell Good Science from Bad in Education (not just for educators; very helpful for mediators with the goal of being savvy consumers of research)

"Neuroscience or Neurobabble?": What's this thing called fMRI?

A new article from STATS at George Mason University about functional magnetic resonance imaging begins:

In the first part of an ongoing series, we look at functional magnetic resonance imaging, and whether it’s really the window on the mind that some in the media – and science – would have us believe.

With the news media telling us that neuroscience – and brain scans – can explain everything from a global pandemic of Justin Bieber fever to whether you are likely to stay with your spouse, we investigate what neuroscience can and can’t tell us about who we are and why we do the things we do. ...

Click to read the rest of "Neuroscience or Neurobabble?" I recommend it. Note that I will be watching for the rest of the series and adding the links here.

While you are over at the STATS Web site, be sure to click on their FAQ page for tips to help us evaluate research reported in the media.

More about psychobabble & brain silliness from Carol Tavris, with some tips for spotting biobunk

The main reason I was sorry to miss this year's annual conference of Association for Psychological Science (APS) was because I did not get to hear Carol Tavris speak about "pseudoneuroscience and biobunk." Fortunately APS has included an overview of the talk on their site. Excerpt from "How to Spot Pseudoneuroscience and Biobunk":

Tavris dedicated the rest of her talk to sharing four surefire ways to spot the biobunk that underlies what she refers to as “pseudoneuroscience.”
(1) Look for technomyopia, or “the technology knows more than I do” phenomenon. Just because a technology sounds impressive, doesn’t mean the science you can do with it is substantive.
(2) Murky methods are a sure sign of pseudoneuroscience. Statistical problems and artifacts are often hidden behind flashy findings.
(3) Reductionism is rampant in pseudoneuroscience. Be wary of conclusions that seem too neat and simple.
(4) Watch out for hype and overselling. Often “neuromarketers” will hawk impressive sounding devices or treatments to desperate parents, students, and teachers that are backed by questionable science.

Click to read the rest.

Last year I linked to an interview of Tavris by APS in which she also discussed psychobabble. Click to read the post with the link.

I think we owe thanks to people like Tavris who are honest, articulate, and wise in their warnings about the ways neuroscience has been diluted and distorted. Let's hear it for the curmudgeons, a group with which Tavris identifies. From the overview of this year's talk:

When it comes to pseudoscience, social psychologist and writer Carol Tavris is a self-appointed curmudgeon.

She may be my favorite curmudgeon; she plays the role with such humor and charm.

Is physical pain the same as social pain? Maybe for poets

I've been reading Psychology's Ghosts: The Crisis in the Profession and the Way Back and have recommended it to others several times. Reading the first chapter can help one become a much more critical reader of research. Jerome Kagan, the author, points out that behaviors and biological responses are influenced by properties of the brain, an individual's prior experience, and the setting of the behavior or response. He argues that sometimes research ignores that context. In fact, the chapter is titled "Missing Contexts." I urge you to get your hands on a copy of the book and at least read that chapter. You may look at research with a wiser eye; I will.

To me, the entire book has been stimulating. It includes many, many points I want to remember or return to for more thought. Although I don't agree with everything I have read, I am never bored. Here's an example of a point that I found particularly interesting.

A few psychologists [have suggested] that the physical pain of a broken leg shares important features with the “pain” of social rejection. They called the latter “social pain.” A major reason for implying that physical pain shares important features with the feeling accompanying rejection is that a small number of brain sites are active in both states. This argument has flaws. The amygdala is activated by pictures of erotic couples as well as bloody surgical operations. That fact does not mean that scenes of sex and surgery evoke a common psychological state. Both my visual and motor cortex are active when I write, sip coffee, tie my shoes, pick up a soiled sock, and cut an apple, but these five acts do not belong to the same psychological category because my intentions and psychological states are different in each of these actions. It is misleading, therefore, to call the state produced by social exclusion "social pain." Exclusion or rejection can evoke anxiety, anger, sadness, or self-hatred, but none of these states could be confused with the sensation of a toothache.

Poets, novelists, and lyricists are permitted to write about the "pain of love," but scientists should not treat casually constructed metaphors as deep insights into human nature. I hope no psychologist decides that hunger for food resembles a hunger for friendships. The positing of social pain is another example of the psychologists' fatal attraction to positing abstract categories based primarily on a common semantic term. ...

If you read the book, let me know what you think.