Table of Contents
- 1 Implications and Rules
- 2 Summary of Brain Responsibilities
- 3 Important Results
- 3.1 Lying
- 3.2 Inverse Relation Between Intelligence & Empathy
- 3.3 Controlling/Optimizing your Brain through Training
- 3.3.1 Optical Illusions of the Mind
- 3.3.2 Bias through Appearance
- 3.3.3 Emulating Neural Effects of Status & Rank via Self-Competition
- 3.3.4 On the Need for & Expectations of Leaders
- 3.3.5 Neurologically, Why We Crave Certainty
- 3.3.6 How our Mind Represents Trust
- 3.3.7 The Logistic Complications of Diversity
1 Implications and Rules
- Don't be sarcastic https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/think-well/201206/think-sarcasm-is-funny-think-again (Clifford N. Lazarus, Ph.D)
2 Summary of Brain Responsibilities
2.1.1 Frontal Lobe
Personality & behaviour, reasoned decisions, planning, organizing, self-evaluating/monitoring/correcting/improving.
- Premotor Cortex
- Broca's Area
- Prefrontal Cortex
2.1.2 Temporal Lobe
2.1.3 Parietal Lobe
2.1.4 Occipital Lobe
- Flocculonodular Lobe
- Pons (pontine nuclei)
Learning & Remembering Muscle Movement
2.1.7 Limbic System
- Cingulate Cortex
2.2.1 Movement & Motor Control
3 Important Results
http://www.brainfacts.org/in-society/in-society/articles/2013/the-truth-about-lies-the-science-of-deception/ "[activity in the] prefrontal cortex increases when people lie. The prefrontal cortex, situated just behind the forehead, is a collection of regions responsible for executive control (the ability to regulate thoughts or actions to achieve goals). Executive control includes cognitive processes such as planning, problem solving, and attention — all important components of deception — so it’s no surprise the prefrontal cortex is active when we lie. Dishonesty requires the brain to work harder than honesty, and this effort is reflected by increased brain activity. Studies even show people take longer to respond when lying."
3.1.1 Practicality of polygraph and fMRI
http://www.brainfacts.org/in-society/in-society/articles/2013/the-truth-about-lies-the-science-of-deception/ "Even without a clear ‘lying’ region, researchers can use fMRI to detect when a study participant is telling a lie in the laboratory with about 85 percent accuracy (polygraph tests, which measure changes in blood pressure, skin conductivity, and respiration during questioning, produce similar accuracy in the laboratory setting).
How closely do laboratory paradigms model real-world lies? Not very closely, says Stanford University’s Anthony Wagner, who studies memory and has testified in court against the validity of fMRI lie detection. As Wagner explains, laboratory studies involve instruction to tell a low-stakes lie about an action they recently performed. However, in the real world, lies are self-generated, often high risk and emotionally charged, and lie detection may occur years after the event in question.
Another issue that has not been adequately studied, Wagner says, is how countermeasures, such as small movements, changes in breathing, or altered cognitive processing, can affect the accuracy of fMRI lie detection. By using countermeasures, a person may be able to deliberately offset any brain changes associated with deception to defeat lie detection technology. A recent study found the accuracy of fMRI for lie detection dropped to a mere 33 percent when participants used countermeasures during questioning."
3.2 Inverse Relation Between Intelligence & Empathy
Managing with the Brain in Mind by David Rock source: strategy+business issue 56, Autumn 2009 (09206) "Matthew Lieberman's research suggests that high intelligence often corresponds with low self-awareness. The neural networks involved in information holding, planning, and cognitive problem solving reside in the lateral, or outer, portions of the brain, whereas the middle regions support self-awareness, social skills, and empathy. These regions are inversely correlated. As Lieberman notes, 'If you spend a lot of time in cognitive tasks, your ability to have empathy for people is reduced simply because that part of your circuitry doesn't get much use.'" (page 10)
3.3 Controlling/Optimizing your Brain through Training
Understanding cause and effect of the brain
3.3.1 Optical Illusions of the Mind
- Asking Favors
- Foot-in-the-door - https://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/psyifp/aeechterhoff/wintersemester2011-12/vorlesungkommperskonflikt/freedman_fraser_footinthedoor_jpsp1966.pdf
- Hugs and oxytocin - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAdlU2ETjU
3.3.2 Bias through Appearance
http://www.workforce.com/articles/20242-you-biased-no-its-your-brain "The amygdala, an almond-shaped set of neurons deep in the temporal lobe, has emerged as a key region in bias research. It is the part of the brain that reacts to fear and threat. Scientists have found a correlation between amygdala activity and implicit racial bias."
Amodio and his colleagues also have found implicit stereotyping associated with the left temporal and frontal lobes. The left temporal lobe is important for storing general information about people and objects, and Amodio said this seems to be an important place for social stereotypes. The medial frontal cortex is important for forming impressions of others, empathy and various forms of reasoning.
And a 2012 study by Columbia University psychologists G. Elliott Wimmer and Daphna Shohamy found that the hippocampus, which forms links between memories such as dates and facts, also subconsciously steers people toward choosing one option over another
Amodio’s research has found that the brain is well-equipped for controlling unwanted biases — if the person detects their presence.
The anterior cingulate cortex, which plays an important role in cognitive control, can detect the activation of implicit attitudes. This region appears to detect conflicts between a person’s overarching goal — such as being egalitarian — and automatic behaviors that conflict with it — such as prejudiced thoughts or intentions.
The anterior cingulate then signals the dorsolateral frontal cortex, which is involved in making moral decisions, creating the possibility of overriding implicit biases."
- Case Studies
3.3.3 Emulating Neural Effects of Status & Rank via Self-Competition
Managing with the Brain in Mind by David Rock source: strategy+business issue 56, Autumn 2009 (09206) "A study Mental representations of social status] by Joan Chiao in 2003 found that the neural circuitry that assesses [a person's social] status is similar to that which processes numbers; the circuitry operates even when the stakes are meaningless, which is why winning a board game or being the first off the mark at a green light feels so satisfying. Competing against ourselves in games like solitaire triggers the same circuitry […]." (page 6)
3.3.4 On the Need for & Expectations of Leaders
Mental representations of social status by Joan Y. Chiaoa, Andrew R. Bordeauxa, Nalini Ambady source: sciencedirect, July 22, 2003 "low-rank individuals expect a certain degree of protection and care by those of higher rank (Fiske, 1992)."
Managing with the Brain in Mind by David Rock source: strategy+business issue 56, Autumn 2009 (09206) "John T. Cacioppo and William Patrick showed in 2008 that loneliness is itself a threat response to lack of social contact, activating the same neurochemicals that flood the system when one is subjected to physical pain." (page 8)
Q: By championing these "Fiskian" expectations, does one preserve one's rank?
3.3.5 Neurologically, Why We Crave Certainty
Managing with the Brain in Mind by David Rock source: strategy+business issue 56, Autumn 2009 (09206)
"Uncertainty registers (in a part of the brain called the anterior cigulate cortex) as an error, gap, or tension: something that must be corrected before one can feel comfortable again. This is why people crave certainty. […] Mild uncertainty attracts interest and attention: New and challenging situations create a mild threat response, increasing levels of adrenalin and dopamine just enough to spark curiosity and energize people to solve problems." (page 6)
Uncertainty is a complex spectrum which depends both on one's neural thresholds, experience and preference, and the nature of the uncertainty). In terms of experience in preference, people may have differe sentiments towards outcomes, i.e. whether one sees them as good or bad. One might be relieved to learn of the availability of an injection which can cure their illness while another may be upset by the prospects of an injection. There are other confounding factors, such as the probability associated with the uncertainty (which relates to our neural thresholds; how likely an event is to trigger a response). And, should the event occur, what is the severity and permenance of the outcome? For instance, I might be killed at any moment, but I don't worry about many of these possibilities I find determine their probability too low to merit concern.
In the case of uncertainty attracting interest, perhaps the reasoning is that one sees the possibility of reward as sufficiently greater than the risk that it outweighs the fact that risks are weighted more heavily than rewards (according to David Rock, et al), or that the risk is nominal (e.g. not life threatening). Or, that ignoring the event will pose bigger risk. Another component yet perhaps is whether there are things we can do (autonomy, control) to affect the outcome. This relates to "The Autonomy Factor" in David Rock's article.
These factors can probably be distilled into a relatively accurate SVM (support vector machine) classifier to approximate/determine ideal level of uncertainty for various populations under different constraints. [see 4 below]
"Sharing business plans, rationales for change, and accurate maps of an organization's structure propotes [a perception of certainty to build confident and dedicated tems]. Transparent practices are the foundation on which the perception of certainty rests" (page 7) [see 4 below]
Implications about how we build and arrange things?
- Changing interfaces people rely on
- Limiting options
- Transitioning between interface views
- Managers, use data to arrange teams to build confidence
3.3.6 How our Mind Represents Trust
Managing with the Brain in Mind by David Rock source: strategy+business issue 56, Autumn 2009 (09206)
"Once people make a stronger social connection, their brains begin to secrete a hormone called oxytocin in on another's presence. This chemical which has been linked with affection, maternal behavior, sexual arousal, and generosity, disarms the threat response and further activates the neural networks that permit us to perceive someone as 'just like [acceptable to] us'. Research by Michael Kosfeld et al. in 2005 shows that a shot of oxytocin delivered by means of a nasal spray decreases threat arousal." (page 8)
3.3.7 The Logistic Complications of Diversity
The word diverse comes from Latin "diversitatem", meaning contradiction or disagreement. While diverse ideas, entailing diverse people and culture, confer demonstrated benefits 1 2, it can be difficult to establish trust between people who are different. Being surrounded by those who are different than us, whether in belief or in appearance, can make us feel cut off, misunderstood.
Date: 2015-06-28 13:01:20 PDT
HTML generated by org-mode 6.33x in emacs 23